You guys are talking about American "defense" initiatives without recognizing that our hegemonic status is entirely offensive. We do not have military bases in dozens of foreign nations, and no foreign bases in our own, because we are defending ourselves. We have them because we are imposing our will on those other nations. There are countless examples of military, economic, and political imperialism on the part of the united states designed expressly to ensure that leaders friendly to US interests (especially the interests of companies with influence in US politics) will be in power. This is not defense and I think you should think again Fasces if you believe that US foreign policy is actually designed for the US' own protection.
It absolutely is. The United States, in terms of defense policy, must be considered an island nation. Canada lacks the population to effectively threaten the United States, and Mexico lacks the geography to rival American industrial capacity or agricultural output. It will also never effectively challenge the United States. There are a multitude of other geographical reasons why the United States is the premier continental power in North America, which you can read in a decent (not perfect) overview
here. As a result, the only potential source for an American antagonist to manifest itself is overseas - in particular, Iraq, Siberia, China, and central Europe.
As a result, the United States should be considered a maritime nation, and its defense a maritime endeavor. This is why the United States Navy and Marine force has historically and today played such a prominent role in American defense, and why the United States Department of State and of Defense has historically concerned itself with freedom of the seas and protection of maritime trading routes. These require, and have always required, the presence of overseas base where American ships could refuel (in the past) and restock (today). This is why these bases initially developed.
The American military establishment, however, realized that other nations could potentially harness their resources, and used them in a combined effort to harm American naval hegemony. Donitz in particular was very good at this for a few devastating months during WWII. As a result, the United States turned to a proactive effort of containing threats before they gained sufficient power to challenge American naval hegemony, the loss of which would eventually challenge American territorial integrity. This is manifested in American insistence on naval tonnage treaties in the early 20th century, the creation of NATO, and continued investments in maintaining, expanding, and developing a blue water navy. The logical conclusion of containment, however, is to prevent offensive regimes from starting up in the first place - leading to the policy of American interventionism you see today. However, the fundamental goal, even in these campaigns, is preservation of the system that ensures the defense of the American homeland.
The concern is not that pronounced regional conflict might occur in the absence of an American military presence, but that such conflict may be resolved with the creation of an antagonistic regime - as seen in Iran. Now, while Iran is powerful regionally, it cannot develop the infrastructure necessary to challenge the United States without first capturing the resource capital available in Mesopotamia. This is why the United States is concerned with Iraq, first and foremost, and concerned with keeping it outside of Iranian influence. The goal is to prevent the antagonistic regime in Iran from developing sufficiently so as to challenge American interests and its defense.
Were Cubans pleased for their stability under the US-backed Batista? The Philippines pleased with our invasion and imposition of interests? Haiti? Venezuela? Guatemala? Indonesia? Vietnam? Laos?
Nobody, and certainly not I, is pretending this is being done for them - whatever the state propaganda may be telling you.
The aim was to ensure the defense of the American state. In Cuba, to prevent a Soviet beachhead from potentially threatening our territorial integrity. In Haiti, to remove European incentive toward intervention, maintaining America as the hegemonic power on the continent. In Venezuela, there was no such intervention in the 20th century, so I am unsure what you are referring too. Chavez lives his life out, more or less, and the United States tolerates it because he poses no threat.
Nobility is secondary to the defense of the country, and nobody, outside politicians, pretend otherwise.
Furthermore there is no reason that in the absence of US presence, a region like South America would suddenly start conflicts with each other or enter an arms race. The aggressors here are the imperial powers, to call them the peacemakers is a perversion of the situation
South America has been peaceful for the last hundred years, more or less, since the establishment of the United States as a hyperpower in the Americas.
I dare you to say they were peaceful in the 19th. Or that there are no longer any territorial or political disputes on that continent.
There are no foreign military bases on our land, and yet we have military bases in many foreign nations.
False. All NORAD installations are under joint Canadian and American control. The Cheyenne Mountain Facility, where NORAD is based, is led jointly by an American and Canadian.
The Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico has a permanent German presence.
There is a British garrison of 1,000 personnel at the Pentagon. There are also British training programs at Fort Bragg.