if they did
it would be a burden, not a boon.
1. Some U.S. leaders fear that reducing U.S. military presence in the Middle East, or removing U.S. forces from warzones, will leave “vacuums,” which adversaries, especially Russia or China, will fill. These fears imagine a precarious balance of power where minor gains by U.S. adversaries create grave dangers—in reality, U.S. security is so profound that almost any potential vacuums are immaterial.
2. Historically, there were various reasons to care about rivals gaining control of foreign territory, but technological change, especially nuclear weapons, and changes in how countries generate wealth means few of these reasons apply today for the United States.
3. In any case, if U.S. forces leave a war zone or end an occupation, the beneficiaries who enjoy greater influence are likely to be local governments, not other distant powers.
4. Today, the places U.S. troops are sent to stabilize tend to be strategically unimportant or irrelevant—that is, not valuable territory for any outsider to control. Therefore, foreign efforts to exploit any potential vacuum created by a U.S. exit will not harm U.S. security.
5. As for wealthier places, like the oil-producing Gulf States, U.S. military exit will not create a vacuum. Influence is not obviously lost by removing troops, foreign powers will not rush to replace U.S. forces, and if they did, it would be a burden, not a boon.
Quite true
US has already come to this conclusion in Middle East .. and .. retreating
China is not going to take over American military bases in ME .. not at all
But, also true : " the beneficiaries who enjoy greater influence are likely to be local governments, not other distant powers. "
mad mullahs comet to mind
