Should or could the USA be compensated for protecting the world?

The US already benefits hugely from its military power, and US intervention in the world is rarely—if ever—a purely altruistic endeavor. Leaving aside whatever deterrent effects having the world’s most powerful military might create, the US also benefits in terms of the influence it gains or maintains over other countries, their governments, and oftentimes their industries. That’s why the price of gasoline in the US is so much lower than almost everywhere else in the world: placing soldiers on every major oil field gets us the employee discount.

That said, we probably shouldn’t look at money as the only cost the US incurs for sustaining such a large military. Yes, it has by far the world’s largest military budget. And given how many military resources never get used, it would be pretty easy to save a lot of money without decreasing overall effectiveness. But intervention and military posturing also has a cost in terms of reputation and respect. Many people view the US with antipathy or aggression, and they’re not always wrong to do so. That’s not something that other countries can really compensate the US for.

Regarding that last point, the only way for other countries to take some of the heat off of the US is to do some of the intervening and posturing themselves. But of course, most of them don’t have the political willpower to do so regardless of whether or not they want to.

protecting? I suppose the U.S. is well compensatred from DOMINATING the world. Remember the world consists of such places as Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, etc. A very large proportion of the world seeks protection FROM the USA.

I think the US should be charging the rest of the world a fee for using the GPS constellation that US taxpayers financed. (Does anyone know of another country that gives away such a valuable resource?).
They can scramble the signal any time it is not over US territory and charge a fee for the codes.
Maybe that will pay some bills. ~Hey, cruise missiles and MOABs are expensive. ;-)

I think instead of paying a “rebuild fee” to countries we’ve dominated, we should collect a tax, for not making them a new state.

@Patty_Melt Protection money?

Spoils of war.

How much would we have to pay to get you to take your ‘protection’ somewhere else?

You make the same mistake that Trump and Trumpkins make in thinking of compensation only in terms of checks made payable to “US of A”. The US gets its compensation. We get it in power, in influence, in cheap gas and cheap goods, in planting our corporations in every country and transporting our media, our entertainments and our culture all around the world.

We don’t have our military all over the places because all these countries ask kindly ol’ Uncle Sam for protection. We have our military all over the place because it benefits us enormously.

Should the U.S. be charged a fee for arming and supporting rebels in countries like Chile, Indonesia and Iran? The “protection” is not a charitable activity.

You’d do yourself a huge help if you read up on international deals/ treaties/ movements/ contracts/ collaborations between the US and its allies. Heck, you’d even glean a number of useful information if you also read about failed relations with other countries or organizations.

The US (any country really) does not enter or participate or help out another country/ organization without prearranged terms. There are always benefits for the US and the other party.

There is no such thing as free goods or sheer kindness in this world run by power, fame, and money. Countries engage with others because they will gain something be it in the present or near future.