With all due respect to Jimmy Carter, and he is a good man at heart, but he appears naive as to what is the true core of the USA. The USA has always been a country of military power. Without military power, the USA would not be what it is today. Even during peace time with the Soviet and others, the underlying military power of the US serves as an important factor to maintain that peace.
The military-industrial complex was basically created from scratch in WWII (The U.S's industrial contribution to WWI was a joke). This was never de-mobilized because the Cold War began immediately after, and Europe was in no position to defend itself.
>The military-industrial complex was basically created from scratch in WWII (The U.S's industrial contribution to WWI was a joke). This was never de-mobilized because the Cold War began immediately after, and Europe was in no position to defend itself.
Actually it was never de-mobilized because the US needed it to play the role of a world hegemonic power -- to control other places with diplomatic and military might, grab resources and such. It was its opportunity to step on to that role, since WWII had destroyed the European colonian empires.
As for Europe, defend itself from what? With the exception of right wing nuts in power, Europeans didn't feel threatened by the USSR. The people of (non Eastern) Europe, were half and half in favor of communism (huge following in Italy, France, Greece, etc. In Western Germany there were lots of sympathizers too, but the communist party was crashed by Hitler (and then the country was divided post war). That would also be the case in Spain and Portugal, if it wasn't for the dictatorships.
Some Europeans certainly didn't, but many of them, in fact, did feel threatened by the USSR: the ruling classes.
Also, opinions on the USSR were quite divided even on the left, with (Moscow-sponsored) hardcore Communist parties being on very different terms with it than traditional Socialist movements.
US military interventionism spans from far before WW2. The Spanish-American war, the Mexican-American war, the war of 1812, and the brutalities conducted under the umbrella of manifest destiny come to mind.
Hey, Canada has been invaded by the US on at least three occasions -- Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and the Fenian Raids. I don't know of another country with a 3-0 record against the US.
Canada wasn't an independent country for any of those (particularly the first two and the beginning of the third), and wasn't a component of the country that won the first of those.
It was not a shining example of successful intervention. It may or may not have been a "shining example" - in the sense of an example that is good as an example - of a tendency toward attempted intervention.
Eh, while that's true of what we think of as the military-industrial complex, prior to WWII American history is still one of pretty consistent war. Or in the case of say the Monroe Doctrine, war posturing.
Cuba was a Spanish colony, and the U.S. gave them formal independence just four years after the war ended. It could easily have been permanently annexed.
Yeah, we just annexed Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
Then don't forget the Mexican-American war, which started with our annexation of Texas and ended with our "purchase" of 1.2 million square miles of territory at firesale prices from a conquered opponent.
Life as a Spanish Colony wasn't so hot. Anyways, these areas were granted U.S. citizenship and autonomy soon after.
Earlier, Simon Bolivar, who liberated most of Latin America from Spanish control and laid their democratic foundations, loved the American founding fathers, especially Jefferson, and even sent his nephew to the University of Virginia.
America in fact had a very modest military before the WW2 build-up, as others have noted.
Before it could afford that military might, it required a substantial economy to pay for it all.
Land, natural resources, enterprising & hard working immigrants, low regulation, the protections enshrined in the Constitution, ease of starting a business, labor mobility, strong judicial system, checks & balances restraining and slowing down government abuses - just a few of the actual reasons America became what it did.
> Even during peace time with the Soviet and others, the underlying military power of the US serves as an important factor to maintain that peace.
What makes you think that Carter, who was President during that time and initiated the large military buildup that Reagan is often credited with to maintain that peace, is too naive to recognize that?
"Being confident of our own future, we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear. I’m glad that that’s being changed."
