Why were American soldiers in Jordan in the first place?
Everyone is talking about the American soldiers killed in Jordan. But I don't know why they were there to begin with.
Everyone is talking about the American soldiers killed in Jordan. But I don't know why they were there to begin with.
The King of Jordan has been a long standing US ally, and one of the most stable partners in the region.
The Jordanian military has quite a bit of U.S. military equipment like F-16's and Blackhawks.
They also have 3000 troops stationed. Mainly for support roles and cooperative efforts.
Jordan is a long term ally of the U.S. and honestly not a bad spot to visit if you have a chance. I've been there probably a dozen times on business.
I've always wanted to see Petra in person, definitely some beautiful and historical scenery there.
It's an amazing country to visit. Beautiful sights, amazing food, lovely people. Of course there are tourist traps and scams like everywhere else, but also some of the most generous and hospitable people I have ever met. I can't wait to go back honestly.
During Iraq / Afghanistan, Al Qaeda lost significant power in the terrorist-world. In its place, ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq / Syria) began to gain power. This destabilized Syria / Iraq / Jordan. USA put troops in Iraq / Jordan to help our allies (Kurds, Israel) and that's that.
Iran is also worried about the instability there, and they have their Shia-militia there.
There's a complicated set of politics between USA, Kurds, Iraq, Israel, Iran (and their militants), ISIS, and Syria (backed by Russia). Its a mess. The important thing is that Iran-backed militants attacked US troops in this region because of this whole Israeli flareup, but the region has been a mess for decades.
but the region has been a mess for decades.
A statement that you could go literally any point in the last 5000 years and say and it would STILL be the understatement of the century.
Islamic golden age and Ottoman rule was relatively stable actually. Sure there was a Crusade every century or so, but its not like the infighting we see today. From the Muslim perspective, it was the Crusader Kingdoms that were the source of that instability as well. But the Crusades were still relatively rare in the great scheme of Year 1 through Year 2000.
A big problem is that us Westerners (as a whole) don't realize how much these people crave the stability of the Ottomans. Literally centuries of peace, disrupted after WW1. And we ignore their culture and history, and wonder why they hate us... We have to remember the Muslim contributions to the world and the stability and peace that they once knew. Acknowledging that should go a long way towards peace IMO.
I'm not saying the Ottomans were necessarily a good kingdom or empire mind you. They were a middle-age Nobility that somehow survived into WW1 as a world power. But they did offer peace and stability to the regions they controlled, a peace and stability that has been ruined since the collapse of the Ottomans after WW1 treaties. The collapse arguably was going to happen anyway (Ottomans were definitely on their way out and is part of the reason why they lost WW1 so decisively). But I don't think this attitude of "they were always a mess" is historically correct, or useful in the scope of modern diplomatic discussions.
I agree with you, the Ottomans were a source of stability and were generally failing by WW1. I believe the drawing of the new borders while ignoring cultures and histories of the people left in the former Ottoman Empire is also a huge source of instability.
We're a global imperial power, so like all empires we maintain a military presence near resources, allies, sites of likely resistance, etc.
That's a generalization. What is our mission in Jordan? We don't just put people there. They have orders.
That’s a generalization
Yep! Plenty of people here have already talked about reasons we have bases specifically in Jordan. I thought it was worth remembering the big picture, that we dot the world with our military presence to shore up our various imperial interests.
Imperialism is when you conquer a region. If Jordan didn't want us there, they can kick us out. So its really not Imperialism at all.
If this were Roman times or other such actual Empires or rule of Imperialism, we'd be forcing these states to be paying us directly and they wouldn't be allowed to kick us out.
Empires still have allies and aligned interests. It makes sense for Jordan to host a US base because we're the most powerful imperial power on the planet.
The roman empire is a great example because their forts were all up and down their trade routes.
Imperialism is when you conquer a region
Even the dictionary defines imperialism much more broadly:
"1. The extension of a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations." (American Heritage dictionary - I just typed 'imperialism definition' into my browser)
We absolutely have economic and political dominance - and massive military dominance - over other nations.
My favorite definition of an empire is a military, economic or bureaucratic institution that siphons resources from the periphery to the center. That can be done with a military, like we did in iraq, but it's much smoother to do by offering reasons for local elites to buy in and only deploying force when unavoidable.
The Iraqi Constitution says that Iraq is in charge of the oil, and what US imported we paid a fair price for.
And most of Iraq's exports is oil. So how is this imperialism? Iraq keeps it's most precious resource and we pay a fair price for it despite militarily enforcing the area. In fact, there is a lot of criticism from the Republican base that we didn't take advantage of the Iraqis.
Are you saying that we SHOULD have take the oil??
We overthrew their government and the government we put in power is more friendly toward us. How is that not imperialism?
I'm not denying that we got rid of Saddam. What I'm saying is that the move isn't as self-serving as many critics try to force. The earlier post is trying to argue that we've somehow stolen the resources of Iraq, but no such thing has happened.
Its kind of like sexual assault when there's an imbalance of power.
Technically, the CEO asked for a blowjob, but you still want to have a job on Monday.
But in this case, its Jordan who wants to have its border defended from ISIS, and the USA also wants to kill ISIS, so why not make a deal between us where we can have a military base that does both?
Win-win for both parties. This is more like the CEO wanting to give a pay-raise to the employee, and the employee accepting it. Both sides are happy.
Just because there's a power imbalance doesn't mean that there's any ill-will or problem. US-Jordan relations are very close, and have been great for decades.
I would argue that Jordan can definitely NOT kick the US out. Not without having their whole country destroyed
Its not US troops who'd destroy Jordan though. Its all their neighbors (ISIS, Syria, and Iranian Militia).
That's my point. US Troops are the source of stability here. A good thing for everyone. Meanwhile, actual Imperials were like... I dunno... how the Soviet Union treated the Polish.
There are US troops across Europe, as well. Wtf is all this talk of imperialism when the US was invited?
They were all assigned to the 718th Engineer Company,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Moore
Tower 22 is near Al Tanf garrison, which is located across the border in Syria, and which houses a small number of U.S. troops. Tanf had been key in the fight against Islamic State and has assumed a role as part of a U.S. strategy to contain Iran's military build-up in eastern Syria.
Tower 22 is located close enough to U.S. troops at Tanf that it could potentially help support them, while also potentially countering Iran-backed militants in the area and allowing troops to keep an eye on remnants of Islamic State in the region.
i can't find where the 718th sits in Fort Moore, but I'm not trying very hard. It seems that Tower 22 is a position that is very far inside of a political border that has wanted intelligence and presence for the US military.
Because they were stationed at a US military base. I think its called "Tower 22."
The better question is why does the US have so many military bases scattered throughout the middle east in other countries.
I think the short answer is US policy is basically "because fuck Iran."
Meh, the short answer is power projection.
Post WW2, the United States still had their industry intact whereas everywhere else was destroyed so they were the wealthiest nation, which has continued to this day, and leaders at the time wanted to keep it that way.
Interesting article about the wealth: https://medium.com/the-worlds-economy-and-the-economys-world/a-short-history-of-americas-economy-since-world-war-ii-37293cdb640#:~:text=At%20the%20end%20of%20World,net%20exporter%20of%20petroleum%20products.
Bases around the world let the US respond to basically any small threat it wants to, which helped keep its “most powerful nation” position.
It hasn’t always been successful and US power hegemony seems to be on the decline, but they still have bases everywhere even if they’re extremely unpopular like Okinawa.
US has bases because we have powerful aircraft. And Jordan lets us have that base because they'd prefer it if our base were there also protecting them from such dangers.
We have a base there because ISIS is a real threat and deserved nearby air-power to counter it. Iran is there because ISIS is a real threat and Iran is rightfully setting up defenses. ISIS is there because Iraq / Syria destabilized (we are to blame for Iraq, but Syria is on its own for their troubles, we had nothing to do with that. ISIS took advantage of weakening Al Qaeda thereby absorbing local militants / former Al Qaeda and becoming a regional problem).
USA countering ISIS is to our benefit in Iraq, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
We don't really take power "just to take power". There's a reason behind all of our decisions. Arguably, our life could be so much easier if we just took power like the 1800s, but USA isn't about that today and our politics are way more complex. Unfortunately, its too complex to discuss in most circumstances and most people fail to understand the moves anymore.
Agreed that ISIS is a real threat and that it’s all incredibly complex and short responses on Lemmy won’t do the topic Justice.
I disagree with the statement:
We don’t really take power “just to take power”
as the history of US “Manifest Destiny” and colonialism were 100% about taking power. We also have the Monroe doctrine and Rosevelt corollary as examples of the US attempting to take power over an entire hemisphere.
The history of US power ambitions have essentially lead us to the modern day funding of bases across the world as we spend more on our military than the next ~10 nations combined. I’d argue that with two large oceans on either side and friendly nations north and south, that money is not for “defense” purposes.
as the history of US “Manifest Destiny” and colonialism were 100% about taking power. We also have the Monroe doctrine and Rosevelt corollary as examples of the US attempting to take power over an entire hemisphere.
1800s everyone was taking power, even well into 1910s or 1930s. But modern 1990s+ era politics is pretty different. Monroe Doctrine barely applies today (we've kept our hands off of Venezuelans even as they collapsed, and I'd prefer if we stabilized South America more actually...)
The history of US power ambitions have essentially lead us to the modern day funding of bases across the world as we spend more on our military than the next ~10 nations combined. I’d argue that with two large oceans on either side and friendly nations north and south, that money is not for “defense” purposes.
Its largely for the defense of trade routes. Look at the Houthis, they're not exactly a minor entity. They have cruise missiles and other such weaponry. To effectively combat Houthis, it makes sense to attack them with overwhelming might. Even then we aren't going to really deal with them or stop them from disrupting trade in the Red Sea.
Why the USA? Well, look at Saudi Arabia or Egypt. They haven't been able to keep the area peaceful by themselves and we now have to step in with Operation Prosperity Guardian. Or what? Are we supposed to just let $Billion cargo ships get boarded by the Houthis?
We’ve kept our hands off Venezuela
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-68139518.amp
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10715
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gideon_(2020) - *US mercenaries
We haven’t pulled a Vietnam on Venezuela likely because of OPEC connections.
You cannot deny the influences of historical actions on modern politics. There’s a direct line of people who supported / enacted US power ambitions, that you’ve agreed with, to the modern day. Many of these people are either on their deathbed or 1-2 generations gone. Kissinger just died two months ago.
You’re justifying the power projection after the fact. The original question was why does the US have bases everywhere and they didn’t just appear one day. Many bases are in conquered countries from WW2 (Germany, Japan). There’s also history of the US placing troops with countries that nominally align with US interests, despite their despotic nature (S. Korean dictatorship, S. Vietnam, Cuban Bautista government etc.). US operations have also been implicated in overthrows of democracy (Iran shah reinstatement, Guatemala’s 1952 coup on Jacobo Arbenz) and the US has also supported deplorable governments like the Khmer Rouge (nominally communists but at odds with Vietnam in 1977) out of spite.
It’s all power projection, and one that primarily benefits the rich within the United States.
People need to understand that Iran is a direct result of the US and the UKs oil ambitions, because the unpopular reinstatement of the shah bred the environment for the Islamic Revolution to thrive, take power, and cause the problems we see today including the Houthis who clearly would have no love for the US because of its supply of armaments to the Saudis who have been bombing them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
In 2023, the CIA admitted that the move to back up the coup was "undemocratic".
Honestly one of the funniest things I’ve read on Wikipedia
Sanctions are "I've decided not to trade with you", which hardly constitutes "imperialistic ambitions". Mercenaries do not constitute proper US policy either.
And yes, I recognize we've done some shitty things in the 1950s ("banana republic"), but its difficult to even call those things "Imperialism" proper, especially given their overall effects between our countries. Shitty foreign policy does not necessarily mean that we're going around trying to conquer people.
I think comparing Venezuela to China is apt here. Both are “leftist” governments that the US is nominally opposed to, but we still allow trade with China despite growing tensions. Venezuela, and Cuba too, got embargoes from the US because of the idea of the Monroe doctrine and Roosevelt corollary (my neighborhood, my rules). The US can hurt them more for not falling in line.
I’d also argue the US is particularly mad at both nations because they escaped the cycle of the School of the Americas (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation) tendency to create right-wing dictators from US trained army officers in left swinging South American states.
I guess my point is that it’s the US leveraging its power to get what it wants, and I’m biased but trying to look at it from a more objective perspective. The US does not act as a monolith, there are people who oppose bases / promote isolationism which complicates the matter.
As an American I’m personally pissed that we have to deal with the sins of our forefathers for being greedy and trying to rectify that is going to be a slow process.
This one is because "Fuck ISIS" and "Holy shit Syria is collapsing".
The world is a bit more complex than "fuck Iran". Iran themselves improved their position against ISIS and Syria as well, because that's a shitty situation. USA found itself within shooting distance of Syria (aka: Russia-backed), Iran, ISIS, and more. But we gotta protect our allies (aka: Kurds) who helped us out so much in Iraq, as well as Israel.
Its genocides all the way down. Shia want to genocide Sunni. Sunni want to genocide Shia. They both want to genocide Kurds. They all want to genocide Israel.