M1 A1

The High Costs and Limited Benefits of America’s Alliances

The United States stands at the center of a far flung global alliance system, which commits it to defend the security of countries rich and poor, great and small, liberal and illiberal. The principal U.S. formal alliances are the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the U.S.-Japan security treaty, the Republic of Korea Treaty, and the Australia-New Zealand (ANZUS) treaty. The United States has less formal relationships with Israel and several Arab states, and many others around the world. The foreign-policy establishment insists that all of these alliances are central to our security. The reasons offered since the end of the Cold War to support this judgment are seldom clear, and the costs are always buried, if acknowledged at all.

  • Shebel

    I kind of like Trumps idea of becoming friends with Russia.
    That in itself is worth voting for him.

    • Annejpatton3

      <<tw. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ir309m:….,….,

  • tom_billesley

    Who remembers defunct SEATO and CENTO?

  • Hard Little Machine

    US alliances have historically filled the role of replacing those country’s own defense budgets so that they could spend money on other things. It’s not about security it’s about the appearance of security. At one time the US’ support of the RoK represented 50% of their entire defense budget.

    Similarly, today the UK has about….150,000 active duty troops. They are on course to cut that to 50,000 2020. That’s a 2/3rds reduction in 3 years. The MoD further projects that number to be cut by half again in the 5 years following. At that point, the UK MoD exists on paper only and if they have a defense posture at all we will all claim that it will be performed by NATO which necessarily will be nearly 100% filled by the US.

  • FactsWillOut

    Allow me to dumb it down a bit:
    Globalists = bad.
    Nationalists = good.