If the US abdicated its role as world policeman...

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JKing106
Less instances of planes crashing into skyscrapers. For a start.

Uh, you apparently have no idea why Islamic extremists hate the west.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
No one most likely.

We would return to a pre-WW 2 state of affairs where regional wars were rather common

More like: Things would continue as they are, with regional and civil wars being common.

No particular disrespect meant, since it's an impossible job, but the US and the UN are both lousy world police.

Isn't that kind of like saying "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."?

iow, it's all relative. To have any real meaning of "lousy" we have to have someone else to compare the evaluation to. So which country would do a better job?

It's more like saying 'bedrest is a lousy way to cure the plague'. The US is perhaps marginally effective in aiding world stability, but it's not like they have a better (historical) example to follow.

No country, alliance, or NGO has proactively responded to a true foreign crisis yet. Genocide is ignored, dictators are ignored. Action is normally taken 'too late' due to public pressure. Timely action is taken only if 'interests' are threatened. I don't mean this as a pointed criticism of the US; it's the way everybody works, and it's hardly worth pretending we have risen above this level.

In short, trying to evaluate the US as a 'world police force' is meaningless, because they don't act like one. The UN is even worse, because they are supposed to take these actions, but instead engage in little more than political posturing.

So, in essence, we aren't really the world's policeman? In reality that's nothing more than a rhetorical claim used to lament US involvement in world affairs when people don't like a specific action of the US?

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JKing106
Less instances of planes crashing into skyscrapers. For a start.

Uh, you apparently have no idea why Islamic extremists hate the west.

I absolutely know why they hate us. We interfere in their politics, and have been interefering for over 50 years. It also has something to do with defending a piss-ant country who's just as evil as any other, over a fairy tale. It's rank madness, and it's not going to end anytime soon. The last eight years have ensured it won't.

 

[miketheidiot]

i think the british would be the next closest to 'ruling the seas,' but i think the world would be much worse off as a more unipolar place.

 

[Modelworks]

If we left the world stage and just concentrated on the USA, I think China would take over. They are the only one with enough resources right now that could spread their influence to other countries.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If we left the world stage and just concentrated on the USA, I think China would take over. They are the only one with enough resources right now that could spread their influence to other countries.

They already are. They have their hands all over parts of Africa.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Personally I've always felt that we simply inherited the position by default, and it wasn't even until after WW2 that it happened. I don't look at it as good or bad. It just is. Someone has to fill those shoes and generally, throughout history, that role has been filled by the most powerful country in the world. If it wasn't the US it would be another country. Yet, there's always a lot of scorn in this forum because of the US's role as the world's policeman.

So I'd like to ask the scornful, and anyone else interested, what do you think would happen if we relinquished that role? Who would step into our shoes? China? Russia? The EU? Would the world be better or worse off? Would a power struggle ensue? Would the world still look to the US to lead in a time of crisis? Does the US really have a choice to not be the world's policeman?

Its a good question and a difficult one to answer. Historian Walter Russell Mead, author of "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World." mentions this in his book: "In a generation you don't have that many wars, generally, maybe one big one and several little ones, so each generation comes to the question for the first time in its own experience"

In reality, with no world government, it is impossible for a [global] policeman to exist. Because of that, the United States is more like a benevolent vigilante. On the other hand: We are in a global marketplace, so just about any action in any nation has impact on us or our allies in some way, so we should have the right to protect those interests. Everything's a sacrifice, If you can avoid the conflict, avoid it, but if you can't, you have to do what you have to do. If we have the will and the way, it's a responsibility we have had to burdon since WWI.

The general reluctance of most people to support use of the U.S. military for humanitarian purposes corroborates historian Mead's theory that most Americans fall into a category he calls "Jacksonian," after the populist, war-hero president Jackson.

"Jacksonians would say, basically, you should not be going to war for these sort of secondary questions," "It's not worth the life of an American soldier to have free elections in Haiti, or, for that matter, to protect corporate interests in El Salvador, or whatever it might be. But if you do send troops, then you should use force in such a way as to crush the enemy as quickly as possible and as totally as possible with the lowest possible level of U.S. casualties."

I think there are many variables to the question of World Policeman which would have to be considered. Such as...What kind of world are we trying to create? Are we defensively trying to basically just keep the world from screwing us up at home? Are we actively trying to turn the world into a society of law-abiding democracies? Are we trying to do what countries have always done, which is establish our own power, and extend our own power? Are we trying to create the conditions for economic prosperity in the United States? Or abroad? Are we trying to build a law-based international order?

Many people in the world see [U.S. intervention] as politically motivated, and sometimes intervention is more trouble than it's worth.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

So, in essence, we aren't really the world's policeman?

Yes.

In reality that's nothing more than a rhetorical claim used to lament US involvement in world affairs when people don't like a specific action of the US?

Sometimes.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
We usually only act as the World's Policeman when it's in our national interest or in Bush's case, the interest of those who controlled him.

:thumbsup: Exactly, and that's why we are perceived by many as hypocrites.

As for those who say "other countries would complain," I have two words for you. Let them.

 

[racolvin]

Frankly I'm tired of footing the bill for the Worlds Police Department, if you want to call them that. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't really an American problem, militarily speaking. They're much more the problem of those on the Eurasian continent and they should be the ones trying to stabilize the region, not us. Our only interest there is economics and resources (oil) but frankly the costs of the war have at this point far outweigh any economic benefit we would ever see.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: racolvin
Frankly I'm tired of footing the bill for the Worlds Police Department, if you want to call them that. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't really an American problem, militarily speaking. They're much more the problem of those on the Eurasian continent and they should be the ones trying to stabilize the region, not us. Our only interest there is economics and resources (oil) but frankly the costs of the war have at this point far outweigh any economic benefit we would ever see.

Are you fucking kidding?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: racolvin
Frankly I'm tired of footing the bill for the Worlds Police Department, if you want to call them that. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't really an American problem, militarily speaking. They're much more the problem of those on the Eurasian continent and they should be the ones trying to stabilize the region, not us. Our only interest there is economics and resources (oil) but frankly the costs of the war have at this point far outweigh any economic benefit we would ever see.

With these opinions, I imagine you've done research on the costs. How much does it cost (not including iraq) to be the world's police? per day, month, year or decade on average? - any time frame would be interesting.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Would we still play the role of the judge, jury and executioner? Or would we give those up too?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JKing106
Less instances of planes crashing into skyscrapers. For a start.

Uh, you apparently have no idea why Islamic extremists hate the west.

and you know? bwahahahahaha...'they hate our freeeedomS!'

 

[MovingTarget]

We would finally be able to enjoy that 'peace dividend' we've been hearing about since the end of WW2 and/or the cold war. We could invest less in military and shore up the projects/institutions of our choosing and/or pay down our debts. Of course, the rest of the world would bitch about it, and regional wars would become more common. I don't see any one power stepping up to our role, but I do see several powers stepping up on a regional basis, particularly Russia/China/Germany/South Africa/Brazil/Israel/Iran. Some would be more...umm....benevolent than others. I don't think we would like the result.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: JKing106
Not half a stupid as thinking as sticking your hand into a hornet's nest, which is exactly what we did when we followed England's example of interferring in the Middle East's politics. The chickens have come home to roost.

The truth is usually not very popular.

Which truth is that, that the world needs the ME's oil?

 

[Siddhartha]

Since the second World War, US's foreign policy or world policeman activities have been mainly focused on:

1. Countering Communism

2. Ensuring consistent energy supplies

3. Supporting Israel

With the collapse of the USSR, the first priority has gotten less attention. Will the US commit less resources towards these objectives?
i