When thinking about the benefits of the military it is appropriate to ponder the broken window fallacy [0]. Economically speaking, building a rocket and blowing up a foreigner is strictly worse than paying everyone in the economic chain the same amount of money and using the raw physical resources of the rocket to do something else.
So for military action to be rational the troops need to be securing access to foreign wealth/raw resources, or dealing with a somewhat imminent threat from people who want to break and steal stuff from the military's sponsor.
The opportunity cost of the military is huge. Artificial violent conflict/threat thereof doesn't prop up anything on its own, the military doesn't generate wealth in and of itself.
> So for military action to be rational the troops need to be securing access to foreign wealth/raw resources, or dealing with a somewhat imminent threat from people who want to break and steal stuff from the military's sponsor.
That's not a complete list. For example, one of the key functions of the U.S. Navy for a long time was suppressing piracy, which hindered overseas trade. It's basically a policing function--keeping things stable to enable commerce to happen. The function of the U.S. military today can be seen as an outgrowth of that.
We don't care about terrorism because we want their resources or because we think they'll take our resources. It's because terrorism is a threat to a world order that is very beneficial for us. The cumulative economic cost of 9/11 globally was estimated at up to $2 trillion: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-world-after-911-part-....
Calling U.S. military efforts "imperialism" is a rhetorical technique that does more to obfuscate than illuminate. Policing is more accurate than imperialism. Imperialism historically refers to directly taking control over other countries, often for purposes of diverting resources from the vassal states to the empire. What the U.S. does is materially different. We didn't go into Iraq and make it a province of the U.S., shipping oil back to the U.S. (Note that I was against the Iraq war. I think it was a waste of U.S. money. But calling it "imperialism" is lazy rhetoric.)
That seems an overly narrow definition that conflates the 'thing' with the means of achieving the 'thing'. The British empire was softer than most that came before it or where its contemporaries (Belgium say). It would not have been very hard to define 'imperialism' in a way to exclude the British but apply to the others. US is not an empire in the same mould as that of the British but essence remains the same.
As for policing goes the subjects signed up for it even if that wasnt individually.
> No, you're the one conflating the two. The end result is different. For imperialism, the result is a country under the political control of a different country, or giving up its resources to another country. The end result with U.S. policy is that maybe you end up with a different (often more democratic) regime. The means is similar: foreign military excursions and direct interventions into other countries.
The end result with U.S. policy is that you end up with a different regime that's more likely to trade with and have friendly relations with the U.S. There's definitely an economic reason for U.S. intervention
Historically, the goal has not been to ensure that you have a regime that's more likely to trade with the U.S., but to ensure that your regime doesn't interfere with neighbors who are trading with the U.S.
No, you're the one conflating the two. The end result is different. For imperialism, the result is a country under the political control of a different country, or giving up its resources to another country. The end result with U.S. policy is that maybe you end up with a different (often more democratic) regime. The means is similar: foreign military excursions and direct interventions into other countries.
I am looking forward to understand from you which part of your
"For imperialism, the result is a country under the political control of a different country, or giving up its resources to another country."
does the CIA sponsored coup against fledgling Iranian democracy not fit.
> No, you're the one conflating the two. The end result is different.
... like pressuring India to loosen its standards for agricultural seeds so that US companies can flood the huge market with theirs that have germination rate of 65% whereas the indian minimum standard was high 90%. Free trade when it is beneficial to US companies, protected if not, or else regime change.
... like forcing India to remove the separation of investment banking and consumer banking. These dont look any different from forcing ones way into markets and access to resources that they would not have achieved otherwise.
... like locating dangerous chemical plant with safety mechanisms deliberately omitted to cut cost that otherwise would not have been possible in their own country and using that to post higher profits (at the expense of locals bearing the brunt of the Bhopal disaster).
I dont perceive the difference that you are trying to point out. Unless you really believe the point of the ladt iraq war was spreading democracy, if you buy that I doubt we would gain much by a conversation.
EDIT: I am intrigued that this hasnt been responded to for an hour whereas responses were pretty quick before.
Yup I know. I meant time after the appearance of "reply" link. I have interacted with rayiner before and find him rational so was curious about how he thinks abut the things I had pointed out.
It is indeed worth pondering over, sooner we start the better. Its also a complicated affair: there is the aspect of distribution of taxes to cronies, there is creation of artificial demand, there externalities like people subsidizing the war by putting their own wellbeing on the line, may be for a shot at citizenship - thanks to selective service and poverty draft
Is there any evidence that the people who make decisions that involve thousands, if not millions, of purposeful deaths are not sociopaths?
At that scale the people who don't think in sociopathic terms will struggle to make decisions. How does someone purposefully cause even 1 death while reflecting on the general wonder of life? They'd have to be stupid. Anyone who wasn't thinking in sociopathic terms would have to choose 'more negotiation' and 'do without' over military engagement. And that isn't what happens in practice.
So for military action to be rational the troops need to be securing access to foreign wealth/raw resources, or dealing with a somewhat imminent threat from people who want to break and steal stuff from the military's sponsor.
The opportunity cost of the military is huge. Artificial violent conflict/threat thereof doesn't prop up anything on its own, the military doesn't generate wealth in and of itself.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window