• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The fact that this is even something Congress needed to consider doing is crazy.

    The main purpose of the US military is deterrence. Soldiers and tanks and aircraft carriers do their job by being so intimidating that no one starts a major war. (They’re still useful if a war does start, but winning a war is far worse than not having to fight it in the first place.) A major component of this system of deterrence is the presentation of an indivisible united front between us and our allies. Simply having the President publicly question the dedication of the USA to NATO did billions of dollars worth of damage - compare how much better it would be to have had Trump keep his mouth shut than it would be to build an extra carrier battle group. (Arguments about who pays how much can be held in secret.)

    The fun part is that they can pass a law to prevent Trump from officially leaving NATO, but they can’t pass a law to make him actually honor the alliance if a war does start, and they especially can’t pass a law to make the enemies of the USA believe that he would honor the alliance.

    • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was under the impression that while one function of the the US military is being a deterrence army, they also regularly invade countries around the globe in wars of aggression?

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Eh, sorta. As far as full scale invasion is concerned, off the top of my head, it’s happened three times since WWII (Iraq twice, Afghanistan once). There are many other cases that aren’t really invasions, but are terrible in their own right.

        Korea and Vietnam were both cases of the country’s government being split, and one of the factions asked the US to intervene. Then there are a hundred conflicts all over where the US was involved in some capacity–usually material support or training, but not combat. Those smaller support actions are where the really bad stuff is. Most of South America was completely fucked up in that way. The US could pretend not to be involved while one faction of locals commits crimes against humanity.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not to deter countries from starting wars, it’s to deter countries from stopping using the dollar as a reserve currency. The wars of aggression come with that.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        He’s still the commander of the military. Unless they actually impeach him there is no check.