If American foreign policy is destructive, why hasn't the world stopped it?

[Cyclops]

R_V bang on. IMHO the US isn't actually very good at war. I don't think many if any of the constituent states have a warrior culture, and they tend to wade into strife with a big stick for commercial reasons. They tend to win because they are really good at building more stuff than the enemy. They resemble the Roman Republic (and its no coincidence I think the founders aimed at this outcome) in that it is made up of a large somewhat open oligarchy and a system that offers some rewards to most participants.

The US is really good at peace, they make lotsa bucks. Typically US efforts are directed towards peaceful trade that favours them, and usually they get it. A few times the Military Industrial Complex have cooked up fake wars for profit, but they leave a bad taste in the mouth.

[conon394]

Contra that Cyclops the US is really quite good at war. Its real problem is if the locals don't want the cultural package the US is selling after its kind of culturally blind to fact that could happen and usually does not have a plan B handy. That is then it is poor at post war occupation where the they don't get local buy in. Exception of course is when say post civil war it was in a position to do full on genocide vs the The First Nations.

[ioannis76]

I keep coming across how American foreign policy has killed tens of millions of people and has destroyed countless countries all for the sake of American interest.

So if it is destructive why hasn't humanity put a side our difference, united under one single banner, and stopped this American foreign policy?

The West is trying to stop Russia from invading Ukraine but nobody stopped America from invading Iraq?

Because they can't.
The US's economy is too far "merged" with the rest of the western economies to "isolate" it without a serious impact on their own finances.
In order to start a war with another country you have to make sure it won't harm you too much financially in the first place, so there's that.
Furthermore, the US is geographically placed in an area where nobody can really harm it (you have to cross an ocean).
The US has not attacked a Western country since WW2, so westerns have no reason to mess with the superpower.
The West (most of it) is in an alliance with the US. So far Germany, for example has let the US handle its defense (they spend practically nothing for military hardware).
The US is far too powerful militarily, and has a particularly long reach with its 10 (if I am not mistaken) aircraft carriers. It can put an immense and devastating amount of firepower anywhere in the world with its Navy alone, without even needing to use nuclear weapons.

Non-western countries cannot do anything anyway (with perhaps the exception of Russia, which could cause the Armageddon with nukes, but then the world would end, and not just the US (Mutually Assured Destruction).

And finally, because the Americans usually give you a choice, such as comply and you will get this and that, don't and all hell will break loose.
The carrot and the stick.

[Cyclops]

Contra that Cyclops the US is really quite good at war. Its real problem is if the locals don't want the cultural package the US is selling after its kind of culturally blind to fact that could happen and usually does not have a plan B handy. The is then its poor at post war occupation where the they don't get local buy in. Exception of course is when say post civil war it was in a position to do full on genocide vs the The First Nations.

OK that was a silly statement by me you are quite right, the US wins almost every war, the US Airforce is top dog and the US Navy has performed technically and skill wise at the highest levels for centuries (you know you have the Poms worried because they constantly make jokes about the USN being second best, they are clearly nervous).

The US Army is also stronk, but I don't think they fight with the brilliance we associated with say the French or Prussian tradition, its more comparable to the Russian model of "bring the guys and bring the stuff. The US Army like all branches excels at technical and supply solutions, Overlords and Vicksburgs but not Cannaes and Austerlitzs.

I think the USMC was the brush war kings? US Army did COINOps too.

[conon394]

OK that was a silly statement by me you are quite right, the US wins almost every war, the US Airforce is top dog and the US Navy has performed technically and skill wise at the highest levels for centuries (you know you have the Poms worried because they constantly make jokes about the USN being second best, they are clearly nervous).

The US Army is also stronk, but I don't think they fight with the brilliance we associated with say the French or Prussian tradition, its more comparable to the Russian model of "bring the guys and bring the stuff. The US Army like all branches excels at technical and supply solutions, Overlords and Vicksburgs but not Cannaes and Austerlitzs.

I think the USMC was the brush war kings? US Army did COINOps too.

It might be better said the US as a polity often has not much ideal what to do with the military victories it is delivered. I mean Vietnam is the classic example. Even with a really piss poor draft and replacement system that really eroded US effectiveness, the US could win battle after battle ... But nobody in DC had a bloody ideal how to actually win the war. They were locked into a mistaken analysis of the situation and captured by sunk cost fallacy all around and never came up with a clear simple package that anyone would want pick as this is how your country and life will be better after we win.

Of course we went on to repeat that in Iraq as well. Stomp all over and win nearly bloodless (for the US) in a month or so and than what. An occupation that no fault of the military was run by amateurs with no bloody ideal what the hell they were doing.

Overlords and Vicksburgs but not Cannaes and Austerlitzs

Insert sarcasm grin. Notable the two former paved the road toward total victory the latter two no matter how cool still meant eventual defeat. Besides you're ignoring the navy Midway and Put in Bay (the last being in all likelihood more decisive than Austerlitzs) are as good as Austerlitzs

[EmperorBatman999]

It might be better said the US as a polity often has not much ideal what to do with the military victories it is delivered. I mean Vietnam is the classic example. Even with a really piss poor draft and replacement system that really eroded US effectiveness, the US could win battle after battle ... But nobody in DC had a bloody ideal how to actually win the war. They were locked into a mistaken analysis of the situation and captured by sunk cost fallacy all around and never came up with a clear simple package that anyone would want pick as this is how your country and life will be better after we win.

Of course we went on to repeat that in Iraq as well. Stomp all over and win nearly bloodless (for the US) in a month or so and than what. An occupation that no fault of the military was run by amateurs with no bloody ideal what the hell they were doing.

Insert sarcasm grin. Notable the two former paved the road toward total victory the latter two no matter how cool still meant eventual defeat. Besides your ignore the navy Midway and Put in Bay are as good as Austerlitzs

You could say, too, that after the Napoleonic Wars, there is little room for flamboyant battlefield heroics in the overall calculus of warfare. As guided by modern military thinkers like Clausewitz, wars would now be decided by logistics and physical posturing, not by the particular bravery or martial elegance of a combating force. Mathematics would win wars, not theatrics, not the side that could put on the most stunning military parade or who has the prettiest uniforms, or even the most gallant commanders.