Demented Donald moves forward with plan to wreck key US alliances

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trump Seeks Huge Premium From Allies Hosting U.S. Troops

Under White House direction, the administration is drawing up demands that Germany, Japan and eventually any other country hosting U.S. troops pay the full price of American soldiers deployed on their soil -- plus 50 percent or more for the privilege of hosting them, according to a dozen administration officials and people briefed on the matter.

In some cases, nations hosting American forces could be asked to pay five to six times as much as they do now under the “Cost Plus 50” formula.

[Old Man Willow]

American troops shouldn't be there to begin with.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

American troops shouldn't be there to begin with.

Agreed. This is good news!

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Good news for the Japanese left for once!

[dead0man]

If this leads to less troops in peaceful places, that would be good.


This is not a good way to get there.

[PSOL]

Good seems to come in spite of Donald Trumps actions. If this wakes up the world to realize that they need to cut the mentally ill schizoid, then so be it. Maybe isolated will this nation go for some serious mental health examination and self-reflection.

[T'Chenka]

I'm waiting for the day that Trump demands that either Canada build a wall across our US border from Lake Superior to the Pacific Ocean, OR Canada allows him to dictate exactly what our immigration policy is. He will claim we are allowing ISIS to sneak into Minnesota from Manitoba, stats be damned. Thrn as a pretext to invasion, he will warn his citizens that Canada is now an ally to ISIS because we refuse to comply with his demands.

[Lord Admirale]

Demented Ghost makes Atlas like Trump more.

[ProudModerate2]

We need to keep troops in areas like Germany.
The Russians have consistently shown aggression in Eastern Europe, and our allies in the Baltic states are especially fearful.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Good. Time to pay up.

[gerritcole]

Excellent, we do not the world, isolationism would do this nation well

[Badger]

Thks thread....

[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.

[Frodo]

Excellent, we do not the world, isolationism would do this nation well

It will not.  It isn't 1919.  We cannot retreat behind two great oceans or hide behind the shield of the British Empire.  Times have changed.  We engage the world because we must.  

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Excellent, we do not the world, isolationism would do this nation well

It will not.  It isn't 1919.  We cannot retreat behind two great oceans or hide behind the shield of the British Empire.  Times have changed.  We engage the world because we must.  

[T'Chenka]

Excellent, we do not the world, isolationism would do this nation well

I've never heard any economic or MODERN geopolitical expert claim this. Not once. Are you hinting that overcoming capitalism "would do this nation well"?

[Mr. Smith]

Good. This sh() is costly and the money could've been used to implement all sorts of improvements to the safety net at home.

[Beet]

This isn't going to wreck our alliances nearly as much as they will be wrecked when there's a mushroom cloud over Tokyo and Lindsey Graham is on TV saying "well they died more over there, less over here."

[Badger]

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.

This x 10

[Not Me, Us]

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.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

I think that can be a rational argument. But it's also irrelevant.

Donnie Dumbster isn't stakjng out a debate position. He is treating long-standing military alliances and ratified treaties as an excuse for extortion.

Donnies approach to NATO and other alliances has the same relationship to rational debate that a mugging does to addressing wealth inequality.

[Santander]

The US military is not a mercenary force. Demanding payment from other countries degrades America.

[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.

[gerritcole]

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.

why must there be a world police? if we retreated from world politics for a generation, we could fix infrastructure/healthcare/education/etc with that money. sure we lose allies in eastern europe and asia but so what