"With America’s 750 or so overseas military bases in around 80 countries, it’s high time to close these bases, pocket the saving, and return to diplomacy"
It equals saying "close the US". The US ARE military bases. The State's military bases, occupation of foreign lands and hegemony is what it actually exists for.
The US did have a strong history of opposition to militarism. Many of the initial framers opposed having any standing army at all. Certainly the modern reality would be almost universally condemned by the framers.
Unfortunately, like on many if not most issues, the USA has lost its way.
This is also true, but it is a misrepresentation to suggest there wasn't a strong strain of anti-militarism initially. It's simply a fact, go and read the antifederalist papers. There most certainly was a different path they could have gone down. It is to their great shame that they did not. Unfortunately, the Federalists won.
Also, they did not establish slavery, they continued it, with various levels of support and opposition from its reluctant use to open abhorrence on principle. There was nothing unusual about slavery in 1776, indeed it was used in diverse cultures all over the planet at the time, from Europe to Africa to South Asia to the Middle East. This was not so much the case by 1860, and it is to their great shame that they did not abolish it sooner.
There was nothing "unusual" in Holocaust for Nazis either. For Eichmann, it was just a job. There is nothing "unusual" in Zionism and genocide, it is a matter of business for Zionists. The fact that slavery was normalized, does not mean that it was normal. It means people were monsters, owning slaves. Whatever they thought about themselves. It was and is the ideology of one race superior to others. And THAT is the basis for today's "militarism", which is supremacism, first and foremost. If you want, go to Unherd where Thomas Fazi writes regularly, and read what the British say to him and about Russia, Islam, Palestine, Iran, China...
I am already a subscriber of Thomas Fazi, I read everything he posts.
I do not dispute what you are saying about the early United States, but it applies to almost every territory on Earth at the time. That doesn't get them off the hook, but it does mean they weren't uniquely bad. Almost without exception, humans were barbaric back then, including indigenous cultures.
Including the nations you listed. Siberia had abolished slavery, but in the rest of Russia basically the entire population were slaves or slavery adjacent. King Faisal brought one of his slaves to Europe in the 1910s, let alone 1776. The Chinese abolished it in 1906.
My point was not that the early American framers were angels. Just that there was a strong undercurrent of anti-militarism in the antifederalist tradition, but they lost the battle for the soul of the nation early on. Opposition to foreign adventures was central to their political ideology. It's not a far stretch to suggest that if they had been successful the US could have gone down a strongly non-interventionist path.
Some of the quotes from these antifederalists are so extreme they wouldn't be out of place in Jacobin today. And they almost won the debate. Echoes of their influence ripple down to WWI, when the militarism really begun in earnest.
While I oppose the simplistic "America good!" reading of history, I also oppose the simplistic "America bad!" one too. History is complicated.
The bases ought to be closed for no other reason than they are an encroachment on the sovereignty of the nations 'hosting' them. They will never be closed for that reason or any other - at least not voluntarily - by Trump's or any other US administration, for the reason given here: because they are an essential projection of imperial power. As such, they are worth far more, both in military and financial terms, than any real and substantive savings that would come from closing them.
Trump is not "looking for ways to save money"; he's looking for ways to MAKE money for his backers, the digital-financial complex (and, incidentally, for himself). Everything he does now, including tariff hikes and 'barmy' ideas (like taking over the Panama canal or Greenland), floated one day, forgotten the next - or at least until Blackrock or US forces acts on them - is designed to further the transfer of wealth from the world's nation states and the average taxpayer's pocket into globalist billionaires' coffers.
It’s high time to close these bases, pocket the saving, and return to diplomacy. Never better said.
Of course it costs them nothing. It's paid for via crediting dollars to their accounts. So, no saving really. The payoff will be in respect, for the reformed bully.
I agree. There is a serious risk that the USA will get pulled into pointless and unwinnable regional conflicts such as Vietnam, simply by maintaining a large presence and trying to play the global policeman.
I am still dumbfounded that people still think Trump (an archetypical billionaire bully, whom has the mental profile of an Italian mobster) is SOMEHOW, a benevolent force for the world and is doing what is best for America. What kind of convoluted mental gymnastics do these MAGA fanatics have?! (Btw, Blue-MAGA Democrats suck balls as well!)
It equals saying "close the US". The US ARE military bases. The State's military bases, occupation of foreign lands and hegemony is what it actually exists for.
It is like saying "Israel, end the occupation"...
The US did have a strong history of opposition to militarism. Many of the initial framers opposed having any standing army at all. Certainly the modern reality would be almost universally condemned by the framers.
Unfortunately, like on many if not most issues, the USA has lost its way.
"Initial framers" also genocided the whole indigenous population almost without a trace and established slavery. The USA never had any "way".
This is also true, but it is a misrepresentation to suggest there wasn't a strong strain of anti-militarism initially. It's simply a fact, go and read the antifederalist papers. There most certainly was a different path they could have gone down. It is to their great shame that they did not. Unfortunately, the Federalists won.
Also, they did not establish slavery, they continued it, with various levels of support and opposition from its reluctant use to open abhorrence on principle. There was nothing unusual about slavery in 1776, indeed it was used in diverse cultures all over the planet at the time, from Europe to Africa to South Asia to the Middle East. This was not so much the case by 1860, and it is to their great shame that they did not abolish it sooner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
There was nothing "unusual" in Holocaust for Nazis either. For Eichmann, it was just a job. There is nothing "unusual" in Zionism and genocide, it is a matter of business for Zionists. The fact that slavery was normalized, does not mean that it was normal. It means people were monsters, owning slaves. Whatever they thought about themselves. It was and is the ideology of one race superior to others. And THAT is the basis for today's "militarism", which is supremacism, first and foremost. If you want, go to Unherd where Thomas Fazi writes regularly, and read what the British say to him and about Russia, Islam, Palestine, Iran, China...
I am already a subscriber of Thomas Fazi, I read everything he posts.
I do not dispute what you are saying about the early United States, but it applies to almost every territory on Earth at the time. That doesn't get them off the hook, but it does mean they weren't uniquely bad. Almost without exception, humans were barbaric back then, including indigenous cultures.
Including the nations you listed. Siberia had abolished slavery, but in the rest of Russia basically the entire population were slaves or slavery adjacent. King Faisal brought one of his slaves to Europe in the 1910s, let alone 1776. The Chinese abolished it in 1906.
My point was not that the early American framers were angels. Just that there was a strong undercurrent of anti-militarism in the antifederalist tradition, but they lost the battle for the soul of the nation early on. Opposition to foreign adventures was central to their political ideology. It's not a far stretch to suggest that if they had been successful the US could have gone down a strongly non-interventionist path.
Some of the quotes from these antifederalists are so extreme they wouldn't be out of place in Jacobin today. And they almost won the debate. Echoes of their influence ripple down to WWI, when the militarism really begun in earnest.
While I oppose the simplistic "America good!" reading of history, I also oppose the simplistic "America bad!" one too. History is complicated.
excellent suggestion! this means it won't be taken up!!
The bases ought to be closed for no other reason than they are an encroachment on the sovereignty of the nations 'hosting' them. They will never be closed for that reason or any other - at least not voluntarily - by Trump's or any other US administration, for the reason given here: because they are an essential projection of imperial power. As such, they are worth far more, both in military and financial terms, than any real and substantive savings that would come from closing them.
Trump is not "looking for ways to save money"; he's looking for ways to MAKE money for his backers, the digital-financial complex (and, incidentally, for himself). Everything he does now, including tariff hikes and 'barmy' ideas (like taking over the Panama canal or Greenland), floated one day, forgotten the next - or at least until Blackrock or US forces acts on them - is designed to further the transfer of wealth from the world's nation states and the average taxpayer's pocket into globalist billionaires' coffers.
It’s high time to close these bases, pocket the saving, and return to diplomacy. Never better said.
Of course it costs them nothing. It's paid for via crediting dollars to their accounts. So, no saving really. The payoff will be in respect, for the reformed bully.
I agree. There is a serious risk that the USA will get pulled into pointless and unwinnable regional conflicts such as Vietnam, simply by maintaining a large presence and trying to play the global policeman.
I am still dumbfounded that people still think Trump (an archetypical billionaire bully, whom has the mental profile of an Italian mobster) is SOMEHOW, a benevolent force for the world and is doing what is best for America. What kind of convoluted mental gymnastics do these MAGA fanatics have?! (Btw, Blue-MAGA Democrats suck balls as well!)
Nice piece of work.
As Tina Turner sang:
"What's love got to do with it."
I'm singing:
What's rational foreign policy got to do with it.