Credit: Wojtek Radwanski / AFP / Getty
Europeans cannot assume that America’s military presence on the continent will last forever, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Friday during bombshell remarks in Warsaw.
“The American troop levels on the continent are important,” he said, alongside his Polish counterpart, Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz. “What happens five, 10, 15 years from now is part of a larger discussion that reflects the threat level, America’s posture, our needs around the globe, but most importantly the capability of European countries to step up.”
“That’s why our message is so stark to our European allies — now is the time to invest because you can’t make an assumption that America’s presence will last forever,” he added.
Hegseth’s comments come on the heels of a two-day meeting at NATO’s Brussels headquarters that marked his debut on the European stage. He had already hinted then that Europeans would eventually have to provide most of the conventional deterrence against Russia.
The U.S. is currently reviewing its global […]
More excellent News! Of course, Pete Hegseth is correct. American Troops do not belong in Europe. No one elected us the policeman of the world, and yes there will be violence as a consequence. The American empire has caused enough violence over the decades. We must have bombed or invaded about 40 countries over the past five decades. We need to invest our dollars at home, not in the military abroad. We have over 800 military bases around the world. We spend more on defense than the next several countries combined. Bring the troops home. Invest in the United States. It is always tough when empires contract. There is always pain; however, better to shrink the empire in a planned manner than in a catastrophic military loss. It is clear the neo-cons learned nothing from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Keep our focus at home, and clean up the mess that this the United States political system. Think outside the box.
You really imagine that bringing troops home from NATO and shrinking the defense budget will clean up the mess, clean up the kleptocracy, take money out of politics? I don’t share your optimism at all. Complete disengagement from the world giving over, even supporting Russia’s imperial conquest of Ukraine is the wrong course. I expect if the MAGAs have their way we will have fortress America disengaging from all the imperfect human attempts at cooperation and collective progress from climate change to feeding the starving. If the current trends continue, I expect the Trump Cos to be redeveloping the UN Headquarters site in a few years. Destroying all aspects of governance and international cooperation that benefits people leaving a libertarian paradise. And yes, I agree for the last hundred years or so the USA has spread death and destruction over the globe but is the answer complete disengagement? Black and white world?
Hi Will,
I believe that we are facing two separate issues here. One is the empire which has distorted all that it touches, both political and economic. The empire is not sustainable in any sense, which is why it needs to be curbed. I don’t foresee any leadership in the US who is capable of this task, and if they were the elites would never allow them close to the office. Note what was done to Bernie Sanders here. that leaves the chaotic approach of Trump ( not ideal by far ) or disastrous military defeat. It is this option that I am most worried about as we are provoking Russia into nuclear war. This shrinkage of empire will not solve our internal affairs, but the financial saving would help if invested in the population and not siphoned off by the elites.
This brings us to our internal corruption, which Eisenhower warned us about. This will only be solved by sustained citizen action. I fear the ruling class is so far gone that they are incapable of the insight needed for reform, as they are blinded by greed and will only respond with violence. I hope that I am wrong but they have successfully forestalled every effort at reform proposed in the past 30 years.
While I agree with you that it is necessary to “shrink the empire” it doesn’t seem that this is anything like a “planned manner”. I have to take Stephan’s side on this one, what is happening is extremely poorly thought out and being implemented in an impulsive and reckless manner by people “Totally incapable of seeing the consequences of his actions”as Epstein described Mr Trump. The Department of National Securities’ Global Trends Reports highlights that currently roughly one quarter of the countries on the planet of in a political state somewhere in between democracy and authoritarianism and a shifting of influence would hand greatly increased power to the countries that most want to see our downfall. To quote the Global Trends 2030 Report directly “A collapse or sudden retreat of US power would most likely result in an extended period of global anarchy where there would be no stable international system and no leading power to replace the US”. All of this coming at a time when national and international unity is imperative to overcoming the unavoidable global challenges that society will be facing over the next several decades.
I understand your position Nate, but any shrinkage of the empire will allow unresolved conflicts which were suppressed by the empire to reemerge. This is what history has shown us; however, the empire is not sustainable economically with the corruption the elites have fostered by hollowing out the middle class. I, for one, would prefer an attempt at withdrawal, with a “soft landing”, but the elites would not permit any candidate who would articulate such a position to get close to election. This leaves us with the chaotic Trump approach which holds risks of its own. My fear has been that unrestrained neo-cons continue to push war at every turn having learned nothing from Vietnam, or Iraq. We have been close to nuclear war with Russia and this is a price no one wants to pay as there is no recovery from nuclear war.
I also don’t particularly think “shrinking the empire” is really a good description for an administration that within the first 30 days wants to annex Canada, own Greenland, absorb Gaza, reposes the Panama Canal and take half of Ukraine’s mineral rights in trade for military protection.
I understand your point Nate; however, there is a difference between Trump’s intent and the result. I believe that the result of Trump’s actions will be to take apart some of the empire. I don’t think that’s his intent at all. I also doubt the he will commit troops to physically take Greenland or Panama. The collapse of empires takes place over longer periods of time, so we are looking at decades. It’s just that Trump is accelerating the process. I’m hoping that this can be done without nuclear war or massive military defeat.