- This topic has 17 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
For example, it's not a "core" belief that America should or should not be a "world policeman", but so far prudence leads me to think one option is better than the other. At least at this point.
Could you comment further on this? I'm not sure what you are saying here.If I just assume what you mean by your comment, my response would be that being the world's police isn't a choice, it's just the way it is, and we need to learn how to handle that responsibilty.
Well, I think it's best to start with a presumption of inaction, meaning it's better not to be a “world policeman” than to be one. After all, you don't directly hurt the nation by not engaging in foreign conflict which doesn't directly affect you. From this we should take the arguments from both positions and determine which one is better, better for our goal. But what is our goal? Long term American peace and security? Intermediate term? Short term?Getting into more specifics, I think if you are prepared to begin with a policy that America ought to be the "world police" then you must be prepared to state first and foremost how this helps accomplish the goal above. You also must be prepared to state how any benefits that may help foster the goal do not create more costs that take away from the benefits. And even if there are both benefits and costs involved in intervening internationally, is it worth it if only a marginal net gain is realized from it? You'll also have to come up with a framework for foreign intervention. The natural course to being world policeman is that you must break up squabbles where they break out. This would inevitably put us in the impossible scenario of intervening in hordes of African, Asian, and other conflicts, both internal and cross-border ones, which we hear about. This is beyond impractical. So then you say we would have to filter through and pick which conflicts to intervene in. How do we do this? Do we pick ones only in certain parts of the world and not others? Ones which involve two or more nations? Two or more ethnic groups even if in one nation? When the death toll reaches X, Y, or Z? And then there's the question of why American resources need to be used when international channels are already available for this. Does a war between Ethiopia and Somalia really concern American peace and security that Americans should die in such a conflict? Why aren't economic or diplomatic measures taken in lieu of military measures? Will all three be used or just one? If only one, why not all three?As I see it international entanglements are messy things. If you don't have a systematic approach to them you're liable to be picking and choosing based on some unclear measure. Why did we intervene in Kosovo but not in Rwanda in the 1990s? It's these kinds of questions that remain with us. Another thing is that we simply don't have infinite resources to accomplish everything that we'd like to. Even if we can sustain a lot an any one point in time, prolonged commitments overseas will drain us of economic strength and lead to our long term demise. This is one of the problems I see with Iraq right now. There's no real timetable - at least not one which is public at the moment - so we really don't know how long we'll need to fund the rebuilding. This simply isn't practical over a really long term. Sure, we're able to do it so far, but it simply can't go on forever. Imagine what would happen if we were in the same situation in two additional countries, trying to fund their rebuilding. So I really think that in the end the economics must be considered in the equation.
Well, I think it's best to start with a presumption of inaction, meaning it's better not to be a “world policeman” than to be one......Getting into more specifics, I think if you are prepared to begin with a policy that America ought to be the "world police" then you must be prepared to state first and foremost how this helps accomplish the goal above.
I agree. But I think this is a role that has been handed to us, and isn't a choice we made. As much as there are some who blame America for world problems, there are probably more who request our help. Maybe using the term "world police" isn't really accurate. Perhaps 'caretaker'?
After all, you don't directly hurt the nation by not engaging in foreign conflict which doesn't directly affect you. From this we should take the arguments from both positions and determine which one is better, better for our goal. But what is our goal? Long term American peace and security? Intermediate term? Short term?
All of the above. Are the current events in Eritrea, for example, really affecting the national security of the United States? Probably not, but there should be some plan to deal with it...preferably through the use of international cooperation. (not 150,000 U.S. troops). IMO, labelling them a state sponsor of terrorism is very poor foreign policy. link
And then there's the question of why American resources need to be used when international channels are already available for this. Does a war between Ethiopia and Somalia really concern American peace and security that Americans should die in such a conflict? Why aren't economic or diplomatic measures taken in lieu of military measures? Will all three be used or just one? If only one, why not all three?As I see it international entanglements are messy things. If you don't have a systematic approach to them you're liable to be picking and choosing based on some unclear measure. Why did we intervene in Kosovo but not in Rwanda in the 1990s? It's these kinds of questions that remain with us.
What if those diplomatic means fail or are ineffective? (maybe one would have to define what failure is).From the little I know, I would say 'yes" a war between Somalia and Ethiopia does have a direct affect on American security. Especially if the war involves elements of al Qa'ida. As far as other African conflicts, there are many civil wars and cross-border wars going on that don't have a direct effect on us and can be put on the "back burner". However, they should be kept an eye on - mostly for human rights violations.(which is I think the logic behind creating AFRICOM) Again, international organizations should be the first and perhaps only ones to get involved, but what if they don't?
Another thing is that we simply don't have infinite resources to accomplish everything that we'd like to. Even if we can sustain a lot an any one point in time, prolonged commitments overseas will drain us of economic strength and lead to our long term demise. This is one of the problems I see with Iraq right now. There's no real timetable - at least not one which is public at the moment - so we really don't know how long we'll need to fund the rebuilding. This simply isn't practical over a really long term. Sure, we're able to do it so far, but it simply can't go on forever. Imagine what would happen if we were in the same situation in two additional countries, trying to fund their rebuilding. So I really think that in the end the economics must be considered in the equation.
I would add political and public support has as much to do with it as well. It isn't feasible to keep a large and expensive military campaign going on indefinitely. This is why, more and more, I am a proponent of small wars (counterinsurgencies). IE special (or specialized) forces and/or covert operations using a minimal number (as effectively as possible) of military and civilian personnel who work with and train the population to fight for themselves. This way there can be a long term presence without the negative press, negative political pressure to withdraw or defund, the need to garner public support from the U.S. (the only public support needed is from the local population you are training), or having to worry about getting (re)elected.
