I have been thinking that the US has been the world’s policeman since 1945-and this role has not been a good one. The US has endured embassy bombings, involvement in bloody, fruitless foreign wars, and now domestic terrorism. And, instead of thanks, we get curses! In spite of this, everyone at the UN thinks that the US should send its soldiers into every foreign trouble spot around the globe. Kofi Annan can’t understand why the US doesn’t intervene in every African civil war-even though the africans would be the first to scream if the US killed some native terrorists. So-should the US let the rest of the world handle its own problems? I say, if a new war breaks out in Bosnia, then Europe should police itself. The case can also be made that the US should not intervene in the middle east-in spite of almost constant US involvement over the past 12 years, there is no sign of peace breaking out there, anytime soon. Finally, the fact that the US often intervenes makes us the target for terrorists-let us stop being the “world cop” for a few years, and see if things get better!
But, of course, the US hasn’t been the world’s policeman. With only one exception I can think of (Somalia), the US hasn’t gotten involved militarily anywhere in the world where it’s involvement has not been driven by protection of (what was at least perceived as) U.S. strategic interests. And before anyone brings up Bosnia and Kosovo, U.S. involvement there was predominately driven by concerns over the fate of NATO.
Sua
IMHO, sometimes the world cop role is a good thing… I approve of the overall effect of the cold war, which eventually ended the Soviet Empire without destroying the world. I think the war against al Qaeda needs to be fought and led by the US; they’ve given us no choice.
However, regarding a lot of these local conflicts, I’m with ** ralph124c**. It’s just not clear to me what the US can or should do. In particular, I’m not eager to see American troops stationed indefinitely in Israel guaranteeing some peace agreement.
I’d have to agree.
I mean, look at the School of the Americas, Pinochet, Somoza, United Fruit. Yep, we really should stop.
Guinastasia, your post count is just TOO big.
I think a major problem lies in perception. Foreign policy makers might have the noblest of intentions, but simply due to the fact that it is the US (often perceived by others as acting unilaterally) involved, that automatically villifies the US in the eyes of “the opressed.”
That’s not to say that even with UN blessings US military would be given green lights by everyone. If the US allowed its forces to be put under UN command, that would more than anything else tarnish the UN’s image.
The US might do best to go isolationist for a couple decades, at least as far as appearances go. If not isolationist, increase funding for Peace Corps
Well the U.S. has hardly ever played the “global cop” role. Granted it dominated the system and intervened in various places during the cold war, but that was for specific strategic interests, not to protect anybody but itself. I’ve been told over and over that they Korean War was only fought by the US because Japan was unarmed. The US fought in Korea to protect Japan which was its “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the Pacific.
People tend not to trust the US because we in many cases helped to fund either those seeking to overthrow the government, often an elected government, or the government that was suppressing its people with death squads. Which is why I find the war against terror amusing. The US has supported terrorists for a long time, it just calls them “freedom fighters”.
In the end I believe strongly in the global cop idea. I think it would be better to have some international agency to do it, but the UN is broken and unlikely to ever be fixed. Therefore it devolves upon the US as the hegemon to accept its responsibility as hegemon and to attempt to bring some stability to the world.
That’s kind of funny, given the close connection that the CIA has had with the Peace Corps.
I agree with Sua… we really haven’t been the “Global Policeman”, even if many people on both here and abroad like to think of us as such. Frankly, I don’t think we’re in any position to dictate terms to the world community. The problem is that protecting what we perceive as our own best interests can be at odds with promoting global peace, freedom, and human rights. Any time we choose the former over the later, we taint global perception of our real humanitarian efforts. Once our moral fiber is called into serious question, we can become delegitimized as policemen in the eyes of those we are trying to help. By having split purposes, we end up with a Gulf War and Saddam still in power.
As time goes on I am more and more convinced that world peace is a pipe dream. A noble one, but still a pipe dream. Even if we could play a real “World Cop” and had the willingness to step into any conflict anywhere in the world, we would eventually tire of it, due to the sheer body count, longevity of ethnic hatred, and/or lack of resources.
OF course, playing World Cop will simply get the USA blamed for anything that goes wrong.
But then again, NOT playing World Cop will get the USA blamed for anything that goes wrong.
Trust me; no matter what the USA does, there are those who will blame them for everything. If they get involved, it’s their fault for getting involved (Somalia, Nicaragua, et al.) If they just sort of get involved, it’s their fault for sort of getting involved(Israel/Palestine.) If they don’t get involved at all, it’s their fault for not getting involved (Many blamed the USA for Rwanda.) No matter what happens, where it happens, or why it happens, the USA will always be blamed for it.
RickJay, that’s because the reasons the US gets involved don’t mesh with the reasons it gives for getting involved. Consistency seems to be lacking in the “moral cause” category. To heck with Rwanda, and yes to Kosovo.
Peace Corps and CIA, yeah, that is kinda funny. I’m hoping you understood the gist though. Peace Corps won’t accept former military or CIA personnel, but they infiltrate it all the time.
Call me a cynic, but the US only plays World Cop when OUR interests are on the line. And only in ways that benefit us.
Of course, that’s to be expected.
Well, there was that Somalia thing… At least, I don’t think we had any significant economic or military interest in internal Somali politics.