Demented Donald moves forward with plan to wreck key US alliances

[Karpatsky]

Sometimes I lament that foreign policy doesn't have a more prominent place in American politics given it's one of the most important things the US president does, but then I see threads like this where people on both sides are unironically advocating for isolationism and I'm glad it is one of very few areas largely left to technocrats.

Tripwire forces deployed in friendly countries are the single most cost-effective way to maintain the current world order, because they give US commitment credibility. In their absence, countries like South Korea would find it much more difficult to believe the US would be willing to support them in times of crisis, and so be much more willing to either act independently out of synergy with US interests, or outright bandwagon with hostile nations. Conversely, it increases the perceived odds for successful application of pressure or aggression on the part of revisionist nations.

Ideally, yes, these states should participate more in their own defense and should contribute to the US presence, given they most directly benefit - as they already do to an extent. But even if they did not at all, the benefits for the US far outweigh the costs.

[Karpatsky]

We shouldn't have troops there at all. Our military spending is horribly bloated and it isn't our job to be the world's police.

Who's going to do it?

I think people severely underestimate how unnatural the current state of peace and prosperity in the world is. The fundamental reason for this is that we have a pseudo-hegemonic world power which is ideologically interested in a rules-based system. We would not be enjoying our current level of peace between countries without US military power encouraging dependence and mediation-based conflict resolution, and perhaps closer to home, we would not enjoy the standard of living and growth levels worldwide without the US Navy patrolling the world's sealanes, preventing piracy and manipulation by other powers. If the US withdraws from the world, powers less interested in this will inevitably fill the void, and this will negatively affect Americans - it is on the other side of the continent on an increasingly shrinking planet, not on another planet. This of course not even getting into the profound undermining of American ideology at home and across the world which would result from such an abandonment.

Pragmatically, yes, the US military budget faces a problem. At the moment, it is not actually that high globally speaking compared to GDP, but it will soon balloon due to increased personnel costs. I would say what it needs is reduced domestic personnel, reduced benefits to non-combat personnel, and closing unnecessary domestic bases - this of course is politically difficult as Congress uses it as a sacred cow. I don't deny on principle that prudent reduction of commitments in some areas is a good idea - particularly, I would draw down in Germany to make room for increased force in Poland and the Baltics. What we should definitely not do is try to cut costs by fully removing the relatively cheapest tool we have to protect peace and influence - this is like trying to save money on a car by removing and selling your brakes.