U.S. Restraint Has Created an Unstable and Dangerous World

Foreign Policy ^ | JUNE 17, 2022 | H.R. McMaster

[AndyJackson]

Decades of ignoring the menaces posed by Russia and China has led the West to a precipice.

...

Deterrence, however, does not disintegrate overnight. Contrary to the narrative of U.S. belligerence and imperialism that has been impressed on countless university students, the United States has, since the end of World War II, largely pursued a policy of restraint despite its considerable military power. Unlike other superpowers, it has not sought territories or treasure—on the contrary, it incurred considerable expense to foster a peaceful international order where other nations could thrive. Under the belief that a market economy, normal trading relations, and a democratic wave would foster liberal democracy everywhere, Washington even sought to elevate, embrace, and enrich its former Cold War enemies.

.....

Russia and China were emboldened, in part, because the United States undertook the greatest drawdown of military power since the collapse of the British empire.

....

The policy of restraint continues to limit the U.S. defense budget. At the close of the century, China and Russia together spent 13 percent of what the United States spends on defense. Today, that number is 67 percent. Whereas U.S. defense spending fluctuated between 4.5 percent and 11.3 percent of GDP during the Cold War, Biden’s budget request for 2022 would have put defense spending at less than 3 percent of GDP—the lowest level since 1940, when Washington was still trying its best to stay out of international affairs.

.....

Consequently, Putin launching the largest war in Europe since World War II should not have come as a surprise.

[AndyJackson]

Where to begin with this globalist shill for the MIC who even today does not understand the source of Russia and CHina's strength or the cause of American decline.

It is all too obvious that in the first place the fraction of government revenue spent on the military has declined because we are spending a fortune of money on social issues.

Ukraine was a geopolitical smash up waiting to happen when our restrained global empire crashed on the shores of Russia and Putin said enough.

We don't want the kind of war we are seeing in Ukraine, but it is untrue that we haven't seen war like that since WWII. We saw war like that in Korea, had not stomach for it and ran screaming back to the 38th parallel which we then defended.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Brandon left $80,000,000,000 of military equipment behind in Afghanistan for the Taliban to sell to foreign actors.

That’s some “restraint” ya got there, asshat.

[proust]

He really considers himself a deep thinker.

[AndyJackson]

A good takedown of McMaster can be seen in Jennifer Kaanagh's Twitter thread

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the risks & benefits of a foreign policy based on restraint. But the argument that "the United States has, since the end of World War II, largely pursued a policy of restraint" is inconsistent w/ the data.

This graph shows the number of ongoing U.S. military interventions (air, ground, naval) since 1898. We used a 100 person-year threshold for ground interventions and similar for air & naval. The U.S. has been consistently involved in ~15 interventions at a time since WW2.

[frnewsjunkie]

It is a senile old man who is confused and everyone can see he isn’t all there...who is the one portraying weakness... and any country sees us as vulnerable.

[rktman]

More like H. R. puffin’stuff full of 💩

[Steve_Seattle]

We’ve shown “restraint” since WWII? Korea. Vietnam. Central America. The Balkans. Iraq. Afghanistan. Libya. And all of the other interventions and meddlings. I wonder what a LACK of restraint would have looked like?

[cranked]

So much not being indicated by McMasterIdiot, not even remotely funny.

[proust]

Ask Yemen about our “restraint” as well.

[Mr. Jeeves]

I wonder what a LACK of restraint would have looked like?

Probably like Curtis LeMay in 1945. Anything more moderate than that seems to be interpreted as weakness by the Neocon/Defense Industry consortium.

[AndyJackson]

The thing that frosts me is that the globidiot talks about China, but our failure to do anything about China and our inability to even focus on it know is because we have been too busy around the world serving the globalmasters, you know, geniuses like Schwab.

[Leaning Right]

More money for the MIC would not have stopped Putin from invading Ukraine. And it would not stop China from eying the South China Sea. But it would mean more lucrative work for McMaster and his pals. So there’s that.

Better to tell our friends that we are not the world’s policeman anymore. The EU, Japan, etc. will all have to accept that, and act accordingly.

[AndyJackson]

And what vital interest does the US as a nation have in Ukraine. Oh yeah, the swamp has a vital interest- keeping the vigorish from the foreign aid funds laundry flowing.

[kiryandil]

H.R. McMaster, neocon scum.

[ifinnegan]

“Decades of ignoring the menaces posed by Russia and China has led the West to a precipice.”

This is true. And it wasn’t just ignoring it was aiding and abetting.

[Steve_Seattle]

To put that graph in better perspective, it would be nice to see a graph showing a yearly list of military casualties and deaths, or of personnel deployed to combat. You could argue that a minor “peacekeeping mission” or a narrowly-targeted raid shouldn’t have the same weight as a major conflict.

[AndyJackson]

More money for the MIC would not have stopped Putin from invading Ukraine.

The problem is that Ukraine does look like WWII, or Korea, where soldiers fight it for control of territory. Russia was ready for that kind of war - it comes with the territory of being and Asian land power. But we don't like that kind of war.

[ifinnegan]

That graph does not address restraint one way or the other.

[MattMusson]

The US is done making Europe play nice. We have paid off and threated for 75 years and we are DONE!

AMF-YOYO

Adios ‘my friends’. You’re On Your Own.

[Mariner]

“the United States has, since the end of World War II, largely pursued a policy of restraint despite its considerable military power. Unlike other superpowers, it has not sought territories or treasure—on the contrary, it incurred considerable expense to foster a peaceful international order where other nations could thrive. “

Ludicrous lies.

The US has shown no restraint at all. We have done as we choose every day since the end of the war, except when checked by Russia or China with the threat of nukes.

AND we have vastly expanded our territories and treasure via proxies...UN...NATO...ASEAN...World Bank...IMF...the list is long. We control the entities that are the hegemon.

McMaster is a dangerous enemy of the American people, as are all neocons.