This article was first published in Toutiao, and the whole network has been opened to protect rights, porters, rights protection to the end!
The United States is the world's largest military power.
For one's own family, it is relatively simple for the United States to achieve a military station.
Don't look at the face of the monk and look at the face of the Buddha,
Of course, in the face of military strength, these countries are also out of helplessness.
There are a small number of countries in the Western camp that do not allow the United States to station troops.
The reason why the United States does not have troops in these two countries is because these countries have in their hands what the United States needs.
France does not allow troops to be stationed, which is acceptable to the United States
First
Think about it, the United States arranges troops in other countries.
The world of the last century was not very friendly, and the United States took a lot of risks in order to realize military bases abroad.
Those countries that have been garrisoned have also received a period of relatively stable peace and development.
After decades of development, the U.S. military program has gone sour.
When the US military base was withdrawn.
These organizations even eat and take, proper white-eyed wolves.
This is the current situation of the US military station, and some countries are already aware of this change.
France is an ally of the United States, but there are no American troops stationed in the country.
On the facts,
The French leader was very abstract, romantic strategic thinking, aristocratic taste of life, which is also the root of France's inadmissibility of American troops.
The former French Republic was strong, rich and talented.
The aristocratic temperament of France, from the medals.
This affects the combat effectiveness of the army.
If a person is very utilitarian, then he may develop arrogance.
This is the state of most of the current French high-level leaders,
It is very difficult for the United States to change this nature.
France is also an ally, and the United States naturally cannot say anything about it, otherwise there will be a crisis of confidence between the two sides.
Other than that
The fundamental purpose of the US military presence in France is to seize European interests.
Europe is a small part of the country, but it has a large economy and international influence.
The easiest and least costly way for the United States to use European power is to "pick up leaks."
France as a whole lacks a fighting spirit, and the minds of French leaders have not been liberated from romance.
The United States is very satisfied with the current state of France.
Objectively speaking, romantic military thought is a double-edged sword.
The advantage is that without the need for American troops, France can achieve independent development at home.
And when war broke out, France could surrender at short notice, protecting its domestic infrastructure first.
Wait until the end of the war and then move on to full development.
The downside is also obvious.
France's influence in the international arena will be reduced, and France will never return to the era of the founders of the First Empire.
His own noble arrogance, coupled with romantic thoughts.
France does not allow the United States to station troops, and the United States does not need to station troops in France considering the cost.
Garrisoned troops in Israel, wounding 1,000 enemies and 800 self-inflicted
Originally, the Middle East could live in this one-third of an acre, and Israel still had to expand, occupy superior geographical resources, and protect its own security in the name of protecting itself.
Israel welcomes the presence of American troops, but the United States does not dare to do so.
We analyze Israel from the point of view of maximum tolerance, and Israel is a civilized country.
The people of Israel have achieved much in knowledge, but knowledge must ultimately serve the people.
There are so many Arab countries around Israel.
And history has proven that it is not advisable for the United States to station troops in the Middle East.
Sooner or later, we have to withdraw, so why insist on garrisoning.
If the United States has troops stationed in Israel.
There are too many places for the United States to invest, military bases must be protected from attacks by Arab countries, and it must also ensure the energy security of the United States and ensure that Middle Eastern countries are willing to sell oil to the United States.
The United States also wants to think about Israel.
After all, it is a sin of its own making, and the United States must silently bear the toss of Israel.
For example, the U.S. military presence in Israel,
Israel and the United States are closely related by blood, a feature that other countries with troops do not have.
And after so many years of exchanges, the United States has gradually figured out the character of Israel.
If a country is of no use to Israel, Israel will cruelly abandon it.
Knowledge is abstract and numb, and that's not good.
If the United States can not station troops in Israel, it will not station troops.
As long as it gets oil, the United States does not want to make very risky investments, even if it spends a little more money.
Besides, behind the Arab countries, there are two big powers, China and Russia.
The U.S. points to Israel to the end.
I can help Israel militarily, but I will never be stationed in Israel.
Final words
There are good and bad U.S. troops.
Logically speaking, it is a serious military mistake to invite American GIs to protect their country.
But the reality is very skinny, and many countries have to do it.
China is not bad, it has neither decoupled from the United States nor has a US military station.
France and Israel are US allies.