Came across something interesting.
I browsing this book: US Foreign Policy in Perspective - CLients, Enemies and Empire (by David Sylvan and Stephen Majeski, Routledge, 2009)
Quote from page 15:
>Why did policy makers in Washington consider that the actual or potential problems of countries thousands of miles from their borders should be responded to at all by the United States? One might imagine that U.S. officials were concerned about threats to U.S. security, although in fact the evidence of that concern is thin for most Western European countries in the late 1940s (see Chapter 3) and thinner still for many, more recent, instances of client acquisition or hostile action against enemy states. Indeed, if concerns about U.S. safety were preeminent, then American policy makers should arguably concentrate on Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America, and abandon to their fate states bordering on U.S. enemies, instead of setting up various kinds of maintenance programs for those latter states.
The last sentence deserves the most attention.
>concentrate on Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America
>abandon to their fate states bordering on US enemies
This is exactly what Trump is doing now. He gives lots of attention to the regions mentioned in the first line, add Greenland too as neighbour, while the US is in the process of abandoning Ukraine, and giving more responsibility in self-defense for the European countries, cutting maintenance (the new 5% targe, which means less American military in Europe).
Does this mean that the concerns about US safety is high now? Do they experience that the US itself is in grave danger? Are the problems this big?
Food for thought.