'Police the world'

[JKane]

Wars are brutal on everyone involved. I have the greatest respect for our servicemen and women. I appreciate all they do for our country. That said, I don't think it is our job to police the world. We have too many problems at home to take care of other problems.

This sentiment in the Pat Tillman thread got me thinking about this issue again, and going in circles about it again. So I wanted to see what others thought and if I could be persuaded in a more definitive direction.

On one hand, I've mostly been of the position that it is the duty of every nation to respond to humanitarian crisis to the utmost of their ability, even if others won't and the UN stands impotent. In this line of thinking we should've been in Afghanistan much sooner, and belonged in Somalia, Bosnia, etc.

But on the other hand, it is starting to feel like that 'youthful idealism' is dieing in me for two reasons: I've seen such intervention incompetently done too many times, and it seems to me like several of these crises were directly caused by previous US intervention in the country/region (Cambodia, Afghanistan).

And I'm not sure I really like where either option leads. The US's military budget is well beyond reason, with us working on an 11th supercarrier while no other country effectively operates one. Yet the nature of the UN seems to prevent it from ever acting decisively even as millions of people die, and for the UN to truly have the strength to do so would require a wholesale change in the way the US supports it.

Then the cynic(/realist?) in me says even debating the issue is nothing but masturbation, that economic/corporate interests will always drive the size of our military and where we intervene (i.e. the middle-east instead of Africa).

[KYTOP]

It does seem that the USA has become the police dept. for the world over the past several years. One thing many do not remember or did not know was that Bush, in his first campaign for President, actually campaigned against the USA being the world's police dept. Then 9/11 happened and that one event changed everything and shaped and dominated his decisions for the rest of his term. I think causing him to ignore or not focus on this country's other problems. He even tried to get NATO to take over the situation in Afganistan and we see where that has gotten us. A longer war and in deeper than ever. The UN is a complete useless organization it seems to me.

Many countries also seem to criticze us for getting involved all over the world and call us a bully. Then when some terrible event or person steps up around the world they look to us first. Even Chavez wanted us to intercede last year in Honduras, when their President was sent out of the country by the military, but yet critcizes us for being a bully in South America. When do we step in is the big question. We ignore much of the African genocide and even watched as Sadam Huessein committed genocide until we decided to go there for other reasons. Why did the world let Hitler go so long and the USA then tried so hard to stay out of that situation until Pearl Harbor forced us in? Do we ignore North Korea, Iran, Yemen, and countless other situations around the world? Why do we care when no one else seems to? They all look to us to do somthing.

Sometimes I think it would be nice if the USA went into isolation, but I realize that would not be possible or practical.

[BiBottomBoy]

Whenever a country elects a really ugly looking leader.

[TotallyOz]

Interesting poll JKane. Thanks. I had to think long and hard before I placed my vote. I will say I am really a pacifist. But, I didn't vote that way. That scares me as well.

[MsGuy]

Why is there never a category like "it all depends"?

[TampaYankee]

Why is there never a category like "it all depends"?

Because it is policy not feelings. Objective dispassionate policy is supposed to keep us out of trouble that our feelings can get us into.

I can understand policy. I also understand the urging of feelings. I cannot always make the choice or the right choice. For example, I think we should have intervened in Rwanda for humantiarian reasons. It might have been a mistake. I 'll never know. But it seemed right to at the time.At least that was my feelings.

I believe that we must do a better job of comitting rationally to our military actions than we have in the past.

In view of recent history with Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe that we need a Consititutional Ammendment that prohibits the engagement of military personnel for any hot engagement that lasts in excess of six months or commits more than 20,000 military personnel to a hot zone, without Congress declaring an Act of War by a two-thirds margin. The activation of a military draft would be automatically invoked with the Act of War declaration as part of the Constitutional Ammendment.

Briefly, the reasons are there must truly be a lasting national commitment, it must be broadly supported by the country, not only by going shopping and voting, but by every family sharing equally the burden of the fight.

I believe this would cause a more sober judgment before commitment and that we would not inordinately rely on the few to take the burden while the many remain relativley oblvious. What we are doing to our military is nothing short of criminal in the way we keeping recycling the few over and over to fight.

I could go on with details about this but the original point is that we have tension between dispassionate policy and emotional feeling. Neither is always right. But if we do decide to commit to a large or extended hot action it must be broadly supported and the burden broadly shared to guarantee that the nation truly supports the action.

This would be strongly opposed by those who see military action as a way to conduct foreign policy which has a strong community in our country.

[MsGuy]

Because it is policy not feelings. Objective dispassionate policy is supposed to keep us out of trouble that our feelings can get us into.

TY, my post lacked clarity. ["So what else is new," TY sniggers. "Hey, I'm doing my best," MsGuy whines,"Cut me some slack!" "Get on with it," TY snorts.]

All I meant was that the Devil is in the details. Preset policy rules don't always work out as expected in a messy world chock-a-block full of clever furringers up to ever more creative mischief.

[TampaYankee]

TY, my post lacked clarity. ["So what else is new," TY sniggers. "Hey, I'm doing my best," MsGuy whines,"Cut me some slack!" "Get on with it," TY snorts.]

All I meant was that the Devil is in the details. Preset policy rules don't always work out as expected in a messy world chock-a-block full of clever furringers up to ever more creative mischief.

Good chuckle. Thanks.

Maybe you just inadvertently provided a spark to a fuse I've had hanging out of my pocket for some time. Anyway... it felt good to blow.

I agree, the devil is often in the details. Especially when crafting Constitutional Ammendments in 15 minutes during the middle of the night.