# What would happen if the United States ended Wilsonian Interventism and stopped being the World police.



## Poiseon (Apr 22, 2019)

Wilsonian interventionism is a term that derives from President Woodrow Wilson. Think; "We aren't fighting a war for oil, we're fighting a war for Democracy!"

This ideology plagues American foreign policy, and is the reason that the United States has over 800 foreign military bases, and is seen as the "World Police." 

The question is simple. If the USA ended this policy,and brought all the soldiers and equipment spread around the world home, and returned to letting regions settle their own conflicts, what would the result be? For the world overall, specific regions, the USA itself, etc.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Apr 22, 2019)

Without someone to replace the power vacuum that would result from United States stepping away from it role as de facto world hedgemon?






In all seriousness, that's not a Pandora's box that anyone really wants to open, until a strong successor state is lined up at least. Without that, at best? Lots of proxy wars and the third world getting shit on like during the Cold War. At worst? Exchange of nuclear weapons between some combination of Russia, India, China, and Europe. Of the remaining global powers though, I'd argue that Russia has the greatest force projection abilities outside of the US, and they would stand the best chance, in the short term, of basically assuming the same role the US did.


----------



## Tasty Tatty (Apr 22, 2019)

A lot of economies would be fucked. 

And, unlike what Maduro keeps claiming, Venezuela would get even more fucked.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Apr 22, 2019)

We are a capricious God but we try to be benevolent.

Seriously though nothing good. If the 20th century has taught us anything it's that we cannot go back to a multi polar world with equal powers vying for dominance. When a missile fired from one country can hit another in less then an hour the world has become far to small for game of thrones level shenanigans.

We have also fallen into the Imperial trap. America despite all screeching to the contrary, is the global hegemony. We set the standards and control the peace. And it has been peace. An unprecedented period of peace and economic growth for the whole planet it should be noted. But that peace is dependent on American force to preserve it. Even Europe needs it. Why hasn't spain retaken Gibraltar yet? Are they scared of the UK? Of course they aren't. If they went into Gibraltar tomorrow the UK couldn't do shit about it and neither would the EU. But the danger for Spain is that the USA would do something about it. Because Gibraltar is in Europe and thus covered by the North Atlantic Charter. Which prohibits forcibly changing political boundaries in Europe. Spain can tell the UK to fuck off, but if America shows up with a carrier task force and a brigade of marines they are snookered. 

And that is what keeps the peace. Nobody wants to risk going so far over the line America reacts. Even Russia has been circumspect. And that galls them more then most.


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Apr 22, 2019)

Global arms race and many regional wars.

A massive upsetting of the status quo and the enormous power vacuum left behind would lead to all of regional powers racing against each other to protect and defend their interests.


----------



## eternal dog mongler (Apr 22, 2019)

mindlessobserver said:


> And that is what keeps the peace. Nobody wants to risk going so far over the line America reacts. Even Russia has been circumspect. And that galls them more then most.



Yeah, we have a ridiculously overfunded military that can get full deployment within 72 hours to any location on earth.

This keeps nations calm. If we went full isolationist then you'd get China and Russia fighting over Inner Mongolia and India and Pakistan fighting over Kashmir.


----------



## Poiseon (Apr 23, 2019)

mindlessobserver said:


> We are a capricious God but we try to be benevolent.
> 
> Seriously though nothing good. If the 20th century has taught us anything it's that we cannot go back to a multi polar world with equal powers vying for dominance. When a missile fired from one country can hit another in less then an hour the world has become far to small for game of thrones level shenanigans.
> 
> ...


Didn't Russia invade and take Crimea with no resistance whatsoever resulting in a Pro-Russian government taking over Ukraine?


----------



## crocodilian (Apr 23, 2019)

Poiseon said:


> Didn't Russia invade and take Crimea with no resistance whatsoever resulting in a Pro-Russian government taking over Ukraine?



Crimea's territorial disputes are older than the United States. Its geographical location has ensured it gets butt-fucked by every little inter-Eurasian tiff possible, yet despite Russia's flaws I would argue it's done the best at keeping the peace there.


----------



## Poiseon (Apr 23, 2019)

crocodilian said:


> Crimea's territorial disputes are older than the United States. Its geographical location has ensured it gets butt-fucked by every little inter-Eurasian tiff possible, yet despite Russia's flaws I would argue it's done the best at keeping the peace there.


So Russia didn't take over Crimea?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 23, 2019)

Poiseon said:


> Didn't Russia invade and take Crimea with no resistance whatsoever resulting in a Pro-Russian government taking over Ukraine?


I'm sure that the US' coup of Ukraine leadership (during Obama) had nothing to do with Russia securing their strong strategic presence in the black sea.

Oh, did I say coup? Pardon me. "Democratic revolution".

Here's what Obama said in a CNN interview about it:

_And since Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine — not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing *after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine *— since that time, this improvisation that he’s been doing has getting — has gotten him deeper and deeper into a situation that is a violation of international law, that violates the integrity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, has isolated Russia diplomatically, has made Europe wary of doing business with Russia, has allowed the imposition of sanctions that are crippling Russia’s economy at a time when their oil revenues are dropping. _


----------



## Dukect (Apr 23, 2019)

So that's it the US must keep the war/military machine rolling until the end of time while the country itself implodes on itself like every empire before them?

Fuck That Noice


----------



## RG 448 (Apr 23, 2019)

God would have to find a new champion.


----------



## Clop (Apr 23, 2019)

It would change fuck all. Just because you pack up and leave doesn't make every other foreign interest and military disappear. You've got a massive war brewing? You call your trade allies for help because they know full well that if they don't join in the fight they'll be next. Besides that, all the talk of nukes flying and new big powers marching in is nonsense, because there is such a thing as a costly war.

Iceland doesn't have its own army but a US base that's been there since the World Wars, and if it left, who the fuck would weigh the costs of taking over and losing favor with their allies and trading partners? Nobody but complete madmen, and madmen don't get spooked by US fatties stretching their egos across the planet.

Get over yourself, 'Murrica.


----------



## Marco Fucko (Apr 23, 2019)

Poiseon said:


> Wilsonian interventionism is a term that derives from President Woodrow Wilson. Think; "We aren't fighting a war for oil, we're fighting a war for Democracy!"
> 
> This ideology plagues American foreign policy, and is the reason that the United States has over 800 foreign military bases, and is seen as the "World Police."
> 
> The question is simple. If the USA ended this policy,and brought all the soldiers and equipment spread around the world home, and returned to letting regions settle their own conflicts, what would the result be? For the world overall, specific regions, the USA itself, etc.



Every country on the planet would immediately REEEEEEEEE at us for support even though they constantly whine about us getting involved. It would certainly be a fine day for bants on /int/, though.

Also, without all that money going to retarded third worlders we could support the #YangGang.


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Apr 23, 2019)

Dukect said:


> So that's it the US must keep the war/military machine rolling until the end of time while the country itself implodes on itself like every empire before them?
> 
> Fuck That Noice


Welcome to Pax Americana. If the US takes their ball and goes home there would be a massive hole in world power dynamics where the USN used to be. A navy stronger than every other on earth combined with the ability to project power onto any coastline on earth.

Having a ultra powerful seafaring nation run shit on the seas and enable trade is just the natural order of things and if not the US then who? Do we really want China in charge of this? Will they run international trade networks fairly? Unlikely.

Look, it takes decades to build a powerful navy. Something nations are going to have to do in full view of everyone because it's not like you can hide a shipyard building a nuclear supercarrier. This guarantees a global naval arms race. Then a war. Whoever wins, or is the least fucked in the aftermath, then becomes king of shit mountain leading us into the next era of Pax *___*.


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 23, 2019)

In a sense, the US has taken the role from Britain as the enabler for global trade. Global trade always seems to rely on a power to do this, usually one with a powerful navy.

Simply put without the US, the world spirals into the Abyss in the area of trade.

A Economic/Finance expert, Michael Pettis, that I check up on now and then wrote these back in 2014. He predicted the rise of populists in Europe and other locations long before it happened. He was wrong about Le Pen winning (she hasn't yet) and Trump losing (he won by the electoral college), but he was right about the forces, movements and circumstances behind them being competitive in the first place. Under what were normal circumstances, neither would have had a chance. In our new normal, they do and it is because of these issues he lays out.

https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/56822?lang=en

https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/56856?lang=en

https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/56972

The guy is not perfect and his writings are long, but when you realize what he is saying; it becomes terrifying.


----------



## Bootylicious Bootyhole (Apr 23, 2019)

As much as I hate that we waste so much time, money, effort, and the lives of innocent citizens by trespassing and playing around in other peoples' back yards, I understand that to a degree we are a necessary evil in that regard.

But ya know... could we afford to, maybe, scale it back a little?


----------



## Bootylicious Bootyhole (Apr 23, 2019)

Now here's the real question... does the wide scale scenario change all that much if the US influence disappears as a result of America failing and collapsing upon itself as opposed to willingly pulling out of the ordeal as an existing entity?


----------



## Recoil (Apr 23, 2019)

Someone once told me this and I'm inclined to agree, albeit only partially:

"If the rest of the world ceased to be and America did not, Americans would by and large carry on as usual, most of 'em couldn't GAF about the rest of the world.
If America ceased to be, the rest of the world would fall into chaos within weeks."


----------



## QI 541 (Apr 23, 2019)

Nukes for everyone, EU





Recon said:


> Someone once told me this and I'm inclined to agree, albeit only partially:
> 
> "If the rest of the world ceased to be and America did not, Americans would by and large carry on as usual, most of 'em couldn't GAF about the rest of the world.
> If America ceased to be, the rest of the world would fall into chaos within weeks."



He's wrong though Americans would commit mass seppaku over the loss of their anime.


----------



## Recoil (Apr 23, 2019)

raymond said:


> Nukes for everyone, EU
> 
> He's wrong though Americans would commit mass seppaku over the loss of their anime.


We all would, without 5 dollar Pocky


----------



## Bum Driller (Apr 23, 2019)

Let's see...

- Russians would come crawling out of the woodwork quite immediately and invade at least all of the former Soviet Union satellites, if not the whole Europe in one fell swoop. 

- Turkey would carve out a new Ottoman Empire around itself. Armenians would be wiped from the face of Earth this time. Syria, Iran and Iraq would most likely cease to exist. 

- China would take Taiwan, South Korea and most likely at least try to take Japan. Most likely they would also try to take all the other small nations in the area surrounding China.

- India would blast the shit out of Pakistan. Nukes or not, India could just steamroll Pakistan with sheer numbers if nothing would stand in their way.  

- Territorial wars would start between the four main players mentioned above. 


I would rather prefer American imperialism to the abovementioned.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Apr 23, 2019)

Bum Driller said:


> Let's see...
> 
> - Russians would come crawling out of the woodwork quite immediately and invade at least all of the former Soviet Union satellites, if not the whole Europe in one fell swoop.
> 
> ...


Counterpoint: why should I, as an American, be willing to die or pay tax money to prevent this from happening?


----------



## Bum Driller (Apr 23, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Counterpoint: why should I, as an American, be willing to die or pay tax money to prevent this from happening?



Of course you don't have any obligations to uphold the world. I merely stated what would most likely happen should America step back.


----------



## ApatheticViewer (Apr 23, 2019)

I've been saying for years America needs to just say fuck all and just attack the entire world with our big ass military 

Fuck Europe, Fuck Asia, make it all one big America


----------



## The Fool (Apr 23, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> I've been saying for years America needs to just say fuck all and just attack the entire world with our big ass military
> 
> Fuck Europe, Fuck Asia, make it all one big America



You _really_ want those people to become our citizens? Really? All of them? Even the Chinese?


----------



## Zersetzung (Apr 24, 2019)

the paradigm of a "power vacuum" sounds like some self-justifying wank 

hth good luck with your erasure from existence


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (Apr 24, 2019)

It's optimistic to imagine that the chinks and the sand-niggers are going to leave anyone else alone, without the omnipresent threat of being dick-slapped with throbbing, veiny freedom.


----------



## A Welsh Cake (Apr 24, 2019)

You lose your rights to a domination victory, and probably have to go for a culture victory. China is in the game and they have their op CIV trait of 0 ethic standards so it's no point going for a science victory.


----------



## Dante Alighieri (Apr 24, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Counterpoint: why should I, as an American, be willing to die or pay tax money to prevent this from happening?


I'd watch that TV show or read that book series.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Apr 24, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> I've been saying for years America needs to just say fuck all and just attack the entire world with our big ass military
> 
> Fuck Europe, Fuck Asia, make it all one big America



Fuck no. We couldn't even make a tiny patch of desert more American. No way we can do that globally. Better to just dominate the trade routes and snack skills occasionally if people get too far out of line.

In many respects the US is the perfect hegemony, as it has no territorial ambitions and no historical axes to grind. China and Russia could fill an entire library with books on all the grudges they hold. America is not interested in fighting any past battles, and is happy where it is.


----------



## UnbirthOfANation (Apr 24, 2019)

Everything besides America and some of Western Europe and Canada will go to shit. Then because we aren't helping fight, America will be expected to help in the form of aid or taking in refugees displaced by the massive conflicts and then Americastan is born. I'd also expect even more hate for white people because people still see America as a "white country" and us not doing anything is racist.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 24, 2019)

Poiseon said:


> Wilsonian interventionism is a term that derives from President Woodrow Wilson. Think; "We aren't fighting a war for oil, we're fighting a war for Democracy!"



That mindset does not guide American policy and never has. 

Even under Wilson there were autocratic puppet governments in Latin America.


----------



## Poiseon (Apr 24, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> That mindset does not guide American policy and never has.
> 
> Even under Wilson there were autocratic puppet governments in Latin America.


Yes, it absolutely does. Every politician today has the we are the world police mindset. And yeah, lot of south American puppet governments, especially after Wilson got into office. And before the whole world wasn't effected by it.


----------



## AP 297 (Apr 24, 2019)

> "Armed neutrality is ineffectual enough at best; in such circumstances and in the face of such pretensions it is worse than ineffectual: it is likely only to produce what it was meant to prevent; it is practically certain to draw us into the war without either the rights or the effectiveness of belligerents. There is one choice we cannot make, we are incapable of making: we will not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our Nation and our people to be ignored or violated. The wrongs against which we now array ourselves are no common wrongs; they cut to the very roots of human life. "


 Woodrow Wilson before Congress requesting a Declaration of War against Germany in WWI, 1917

http://time.com/4718404/wwi-wilson-request-to-congress/

Woodrow Wilson initially didn't really want the US to be involved in WWI. Europe got so out of control with its total warfare that the US eventually saw itself drawn in thanks to the Lusitania. WWI taught the US a painful lesson. It can either steer the world or it can be steered by the world. Isolationism is a fantasy. Technology makes it a fantasy. It is a painful realization especially in this day and age where people want to shut the world out because of the imbalances created by globalization.

The sad truth is that you can't really shut out the outside world. It eventually comes for you. People love to say that everything the US does backfires, but I would also argue that there is a cost for doing nothing. Either way there is no easy answer and no easy way to proceed. Sometimes the choice is between something that is bad initially and might get better or something that seems easy at first but only gets worse over time.

Yeah Wilson's eventual realization of this is a huge pillar of US Foreign Policy. People want to forget this, but they are all living in a dream world.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Apr 25, 2019)

SunLightStreak said:


> Woodrow Wilson before Congress requesting a Declaration of War against Germany in WWI, 1917
> 
> http://time.com/4718404/wwi-wilson-request-to-congress/
> 
> ...



Choosing to do nothing is still a choice to do something. Its the biggest paradox in politics, economics and war. 

America chose to do nothing when Japan invaded Manchuria, which was a flagrant violation of the Washington Naval Treaty that had included guarantees for Chinese independence in it. Chamberlain gets a bad rap for letting things get out of hand in Europe, but Herbert Hoover gets the distinct pleasure of choosing to do nothing both in the face of an economic crisis and a geostrategic one. Choosing to do nothing in both cases had massive negative repercussions for America. People forget Hoover was the guy asleep at the switch when Japan started steam rolling over Asia. Imo it makes him the second worst president. After Buchanon. Nothing can top letting the country slide into civil war. Again by choosing to do nothing.


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Apr 25, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Counterpoint: why should I, as an American, be willing to die or pay tax money to prevent this from happening?


There would be knock on effects that would severely effect the US. Say a billion screaming Chinese get nuked off the face of the earth, who buys our surplus grain then?

Or, even worse, they get blockaded and their enemy starts torpedoing our bulk shipping to starve them into submission. What do we do about that? It's happened before. Multiple times. WWII pre-1941, the runup to WWI, 1812, Quasi-War, and many others. Neutral shipping gets hosed during wartime and international treaties/conventions go out the window during major conflicts (read: unrestricted submarine warfare).

Today the US economy is simply too large and has too many fingers in too many pies not to feel the effects of some large conflict. We are gonna get drug into it kicking and screaming regardless. Like @SunLightStreak said, Wilson didn't direct policy this way. He merely recognized the reality of the situation and adapted policy to it.



mindlessobserver said:


> Choosing to do nothing is still a choice to do something. Its the biggest paradox in politics, economics and war.
> 
> America chose to do nothing when Japan invaded Manchuria, which was a flagrant violation of the Washington Naval Treaty that had included guarantees for Chinese independence in it. Chamberlain gets a bad rap for letting things get out of hand in Europe, but Herbert Hoover gets the distinct pleasure of choosing to do nothing both in the face of an economic crisis and a geostrategic one. Choosing to do nothing in both cases had massive negative repercussions for America. People forget Hoover was the guy asleep at the switch when Japan started steam rolling over Asia. Imo it makes him the second worst president. After Buchanon. Nothing can top letting the country slide into civil war. Again by choosing to do nothing.


Back then the Reps were the dove party. The Dems were the hawks. Things changed in, what, the 50's 60's? Somewhere in there. Teddy was the outlier but he was always a bit of an odd fit to the party.


----------



## The best and greatest (Apr 25, 2019)

ApatheticViewer said:


> I've been saying for years America needs to just say fuck all and just attack the entire world with our big ass military
> 
> Fuck Europe, Fuck Asia, make it all one big America


Why bother when you can just fast-colonize and fortify the moon? From there you can pretty much freely dictate planetary access to space. He who has command of the sea has command of everything. Fuck planet earth lets get started on Empire Solaria.


----------



## JustStopDude (Apr 25, 2019)

mindlessobserver said:


> In many respects the US is the perfect hegemony, as it has no territorial ambitions and no historical axes to grind



I did not become a naturalized US citizen to just roll over to the Canucks. They burned DC.... We still need to burn Toronto.

And on the added plus, it would free up the real estate market so those syrupt sucking bastards will shut the fuck up about housing costs. 1812 never ended!!!


----------



## nonvir_1984 (May 8, 2019)

My bet is there would be general chaos, people trying to emigrate to Nu Zelun and 'Straylia, and also a whole bunch of jihadists looking for someone else to hate and attack. The Chinese would not be so forgiving and large parts of the jihadists' world would be parking lots.


----------



## Slap47 (May 8, 2019)

nonvir_1984 said:


> My bet is there would be general chaos, people trying to emigrate to Nu Zelun and 'Straylia, and also a whole bunch of jihadists looking for someone else to hate and attack. The Chinese would not be so forgiving and large parts of the jihadists' world would be parking lots.



So the plot of Command and Conquer: Zero Hour?



Poiseon said:


> Yes, it absolutely does. Every politician today has the we are the world police mindset. And yeah, lot of south American puppet governments, especially after Wilson got into office. And before the whole world wasn't effected by it.



Wilson argued for national self determination. The USA coldly intervenes in the name of protecting trade routes and key resources. 

President Wilson was outraged when Henry Lane Wilson intervened in Mexico's politics to install a dictatorship.




ColtWalker1847 said:


> There would be knock on effects that would severely effect the US. Say a billion screaming Chinese get nuked off the face of the earth, who buys our surplus grain then?
> 
> Or, even worse, they get blockaded and their enemy starts torpedoing our bulk shipping to starve them into submission. What do we do about that? It's happened before. Multiple times. WWII pre-1941, the runup to WWI, 1812, Quasi-War, and many others. Neutral shipping gets hosed during wartime and international treaties/conventions go out the window during major conflicts (read: unrestricted submarine warfare).
> 
> ...



The USA could easily return to being isolated. It has enough oil and raw materials and has plenty of cheap labor via Latin America. 



ColtWalker1847 said:


> Back then the Reps were the dove party. The Dems were the hawks. Things changed in, what, the 50's 60's? Somewhere in there. Teddy was the outlier but he was always a bit of an odd fit to the party.



Teddy built the canal and Franklin allied with Saudi to get the oil. That family obviously had a project for global domination in mind. 

Both parties had a progressive faction that was anti-war. Overall the Dems were the party of the immigrants and southern interests and the Reps were the business party. Both parties were anti-war until that sweet big-gov spending from the war flooded into the south and cities.


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (May 8, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> The USA could easily return to being isolated. It has enough oil and raw materials and has plenty of cheap labor via Latin America.


Autarky is not a solution.


----------



## Fork Cartel (May 8, 2019)

Very little changes but the antiamerican tack switches from 'MURICA GET OUT REEEEEEE' to 'Y MURICA NO HELP PL0X', and watching the reversal would well justify this on its own beside the economic benefit


----------



## Rand /pol/ (May 9, 2019)

Clop said:


> It would change fuck all. Just because you pack up and leave doesn't make every other foreign interest and military disappear. You've got a massive war brewing? You call your trade allies for help because they know full well that if they don't join in the fight they'll be next. Besides that, all the talk of nukes flying and new big powers marching in is nonsense, because there is such a thing as a costly war.
> 
> Iceland doesn't have its own army but a US base that's been there since the World Wars, and if it left, who the fuck would weigh the costs of taking over and losing favor with their allies and trading partners? Nobody but complete madmen, and madmen don't get spooked by US fatties stretching their egos across the planet.
> 
> Get over yourself, 'Murrica.


I know you don't like us, and frankly I don't blame you but how long do you think South Korea can hold out against the North and China? It'd be '75 all over again.


----------



## Clop (May 9, 2019)

Ron /pol/ said:


> I know you don't like us, and frankly I don't blame you but how long do you think South Korea can hold out against the North and China? It'd be '75 all over again.


I give China as much shit as the next guy but I don't think today's China is dumb enough to tear up the free trade contract with South Korea so they can hand over power to a dictator living in the 1950's and completely demolish one of the biggest economies on this planet. Nor do I think the United States is the only country that supports South Korea remaining independent.

Now if SK was some dirty little backwater shithole with mudhuts, then I'd totally believe China would be willing to play their bluff and slag it.

As for the Korean War, you may call me dumb for this one since history isn't my strongest suite, I won't mind; China and the Soviets backed North Korea because of their communist policies, the US supported South Korea for their capitalist policies, and both sides got involved because they feared the other side's influence growing. This was common shit across the globe (Cuba, Afghanistan, Germany, etc.) and China doesn't give a shit if North Korea invades South Korea as long as there's no chance of the US possibly tipping the scales so that South Korea pours over the North and turns it into a capitalist country. US not being involved means China has no reason to be involved. And in general I don't think the Cold War era communism vs capitalism wars entice China anymore. It's all about acting tough and paranoid while trading shit.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (May 9, 2019)

Clop said:


> US not being involved means China has no reason to be involved.


I personally find that view of international relations to be really optimistic, it's the same sort of logic a lot of leaders had about the Soviets right after WW2 "well, the war's over, they'll just peacefully exit all the countries they're occupying".  When the US exited from South Vietnam did the North and China leave it alone once the US was gone? No, they invaded. Maybe Korea's importance to trade would prevent an invasion, maybe it won't, I honestly don't know.


----------

