by dorlomin » Sun 22 Feb 2009, 15:03:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deMolay', 'W')hat will be the worldwide effects of the USA ending it's role as the World's policeman. Due to the economic collapse. The same thing happened to Great Britain. Let's suppose that the economic collapse is so great that the USA no longer can afford a 7 Seas Navy and pulls back to true national defense only. What will that mean worldwide? What will happen to globalism? What will it mean at the local level?
The British empire ceased to be as it became unprofitable not because of the UKs economic collapse. It became unprofitable mostly when the Indians began serious internal resistance to British rule meaning that in the 30s Britain was seriously moving to exit India. The meme that the Brits left because of WWII is largely lazy historiography. The UK was subsequently ejected from Africa by Soviet backed resistance movements and the fact that those territories had a decidedly negative cashflow.
In many respects it was squeezed out of its empire by other, more powerful powers seeking to replace its formal control with zones of their informal control i.e. the US and the Soviets. Post war economic weakness was in part responsible in that the US had economic leavers over the British to break up the Empire trade block for 'free trade'. This was an important part of the Bretton Woods era economic planning.
The UK has subsequently gone on to be vastly wealthier than it was during it imperial heyday.
The US has never been a 'world policeman'. This is a meme used to sell its imperialism to a population inherently hostile to the idea of empire. Couple of instructive examples....
During the East Pakistan crisis of 1971, hundreds of thousands and perhaps up to 3 million people were killed in a deliberate genocide aimed at terrorizing Bangladeshi Muslims and exterminating Bangladeshi Hindus. The US moved a carrier into the area to try to discourage India from intervening to bring a halt to the carnage.
The US is very widely regarded as having green lighted the Indonesian invasion of East Timor which lead to the deaths of up to 200 000 East Timorese (largely Christian).
The US was very active in supporting the Iraqi invasion of Iran that lead to in excess of 800 000 deaths.
During its hijinks in South East Asia in the 60s and 70s the various wars down there killed somewhere between 2 000 000 and 3 000 000 civilians.
The list goes on and on an on. The US military presence round the world is aimed at preventing alternative economic systems, local nationalization of resources, independent development and to ensure as much access to all markets as can be obtained for US companies where ever possible.
Its a more of a mafia don making sure no one encroaches upon its turf than a bobby on the beat.
The idea that the US will retreat from this is laughable. What is looking like changing is a more 'republican' style management of empire. The neoconservatives were ex-democrats who sought to actively intervene in the world to spread liberty while opening the globe for the US business. The new administration is looking like a return to the realities of a Eisenhower or Nixon from the fantasies of the neocons. Hard power will be less obvious as the president and his team charm the world......... this will be permitted because it is a much cheaper way to run an empire, let the Iranians get on with being Iranian, but sell us the oil instead of threatening to 'liberate' them all the time. It’s a cheaper means of doing the same thing.
Less troops in South Korea, Germany and Iraq is not the same as no troops.