Should the U.S. military act as the World's policeman?

[Cascadian]

Poll question: Should the U.S. military act as the World's policeman?

Should the U.S. continue to send it's forces worldwide wherever there is a hot spot? Or should we make it more of a self-defense force. Only to protect or territory?

John

[jpgray]

1. No. Any other role is a direct theft from our citizens. (nt)

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. So, before I vote

Does that mean that, had Japan not attacked us, we would have ignored Nazi Germany entirely?

If it does, and I assume it does, then I also direct the No voters to watch the West Wing and examine President Bartlett's reasoning behind intervention in humanitarian situations.

[Cascadian]

3. We should fix the problems we have at home before we stick our...

noses in other countries affairs.

John

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Our noses are everywhere

And that can't be avoided. We are part of NATO and other such groups just for starters. Then we have other allies. Then we have economic interests. Then there are humanitarian interests.

I am NOT an isolationist.

[Cascadian]

7. why should we have NATO?

The cold war has been long over. The Warsaw Pact is gone. Do we really need NATO? I don't think so. I am not talking about the U.S. returning to isolationism but I do not want this country to be some empire.It's the source of hostility towards America and Americans worldwide bar none!

John

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. It gives us ties to Europe

That is a good thing.

[mtnester]

56. Maybe for us

but if I were a European, that would hardly comfort me
:scared:

[bpilgrim]

8. nazi germany declared war on us

remeber?

btw: we created the UN for just such a purpose so when we start acting unilaterialy like NAZI GERMANY and IMPERIAL JAPAN did we have BIG PROBLEMS.

knowing of your deep hatred of those imperial powers you must be deeply ashamed of our current simular behavior.

:hi:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. I do remember

That's why I worded my post as I did.

Suppose Japan had not attacked us? Should we have just stood by and let Europe be dominated by the Nazis? Should we have tolerated the Holocaust?

No.

[Saeba]

40. No, you should not have tolerated the Holocaust…

But it’s exactly what you have done.

You’re fast to blame all European about the Holocaust, but when Germany invaded Poland, it seems that USA had not interest in stopping the Nazis, in the contrary of UK and France. No more opposition when the Nazis extended their campaign against Norway and the Benelux. USA was not very concerned too by the fall of France, or by the bombardment of Britain. Always no worry when the Nazis finished conquering Europe, and probably some happiness when the Nazis finally turned against URSS.

Even after that the attack of Pearl Harbour, you yet didn’t declare war against Nazis. USA. Then yet, when you had no other choice you started to worry about what could happen in Europe. It doesn’t appear to me as a strong commitment to save the victims of the Holocaust.

Secondly your analogy with the WWII is really irrelevant, as during WWII it was imperial powers spreading war. By the way, you don’t respond about your feeling on the imperialist move of the USA against Iraq…

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. You?

Sorry, I wasn't there. Had I been making the decision, we would indeed have stood up with England and France at the time of the invasion of Poland.

The reason we didn't is because the Europeans had been warring with each other for hundreds of years and pretty much everyone on this side of the Atlantic thought it was more of the same.

It wasn't.

As for Iraq, I've responded on numerous occasions. I opposed the war from before it began. It was stupid and ill-conceived.

[Saeba]

49. Nothing personal, but…

You asked “Should we have tolerated the Holocaust?”. Then as a fact you have, not you but your country. And I agree that Americans don’t care too much to understand what’s happen in Europe. By the way you had a great president at this time who has done his best to change this mentality and to protect your country.

Glad that you oppose to the war in Iraq. And now? How other countries should react to this war from your point of view?

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. We did have a great president

FDR is my second favorite only to Lincoln.

Americans were unhappy they had been pulled into the first world war and wanted, understandably to avoid a similar conflict. Alas, WWII was NOT similar.

I think other countries HAVE reacted to the U.S. They didn't like the invasion and they will continue to push the U.S. out of Iraq and the UN in.

[Saeba]

53. I know more about FDR than Lincoln, cultural background...

About other countries I'm not sure. I think too that all have understood that USA has radically changed (except Blair, but maybe he’s already too implicated and can’t go back). Anyway I fear that all governments have the same opinion than you about UN, not without reason it’s true.

Nevertheless as bad UN can be it’s after all a beginning of a world democracy. However it seems that our leader don’t feel very comfortable with the concept of democracy when it’s applying to them.

Then they probably don’t push to much an UN solution. In fact it’s more “if we have to go in” than “we want the go in”.

It’s a cynical position, but probably a political good one. I don’t remember successful colonisation recently. Even China has yet trouble with Tibet even if Tibet is a very small country and China not too cautious about spending human life. Bad luck for the Iraqis…

[BonjourUSA]

43. The answer is not one or zero.

Before Pearl Harbor only 10% of the American population agreed with an intervention on the European battlefield.

Sometimes the defense of territory needs to fight over sea. The true question is : Where is the right place this fight must be done according to right values.

[RafterMan]

46. Uh

FDR did everything he could to get us into that war, including freezing assets, imposing an oil embargo and supplying one side with massive amounts of weapons. Do you think he shouldn't have?

[jpgray]

10. WWII is the exception rather than the rule

The rule is intervention for economic gain. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were the exception as direct, serious threats to the US, forgetting the genocide of the Jews entirely. Iraq, however, was not such a threat.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. OK, no threat, just genocide

Even then, we should stop it.

[jpgray]

19. But we don't follow that standard

Witness Cambodia, the Congo, Rwanda... take your pick.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. The question remains, should we?

Most so far are arguing that we stand idly by and watch genocide occur. I can't do that.

[jpgray]

25. Sure, but we don't, and we won't

We only pick the "genocides" that are easy, economically worthwhile, or carried out by regimes that actually represent a direct threat. Should we have a perfectly altruistic foreign policy? Yes! But we are not mature enough as a country to hold off misusing this justification to go to war for all the wrong reasons.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. So we should just stand by and watch millions die?

Because the UN is NOT effective in dealing with such conflicts.

[jpgray]

28. This is what we already do.

3.2 million dead in the Congo, with weekly deaths at times topping those of WWII. What have we done? Nada. The "genocide" rationale isn't used for stopping genocide, it's used for political and economic gain, and therefore is totally suspect in a country so deluded as our own.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. So you accept the status quo?

I don't. Sitting by and watching millions die while we could intervene is wrong.

[jpgray]

32. No, just acknowledging reality

If we could be trusted to follow an altruistic foreign policy in this country, we should accept the "genocide" rationale. But we can't, so we shouldn't accept the "genocide" rationale, because we will end up causing more pain and death than we are likely to prevent. Clinton and Bush both say we can't permit genocide to occur, yet both ignored the genocides in Africa. Just saying we're for something doesn't make it true, and in general it is a smokescreen to spend defense money and steal natural resources.

If we demonstrably aren't interested in preventing genocides, using that as a rationale is highly suspect. If we were actually backing that up, it would be a different story, but that's a fairy tale, not the reality.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. We SHOULD BE interested in preventing genocides

And yes, even if that puts American troops at risk.

[Saeba]

41. And what is your solution? Invade the country and kill them by yourself?

I don’t speak about the invasion of Iraq, which is absolutely not a humanitarian operation. But do you remember about Somalia? This was closer to a humanitarian mission, even if it was done for PR motives. Do you remember how it finished? Not very well from my point of view. Then yes, prevent massacre is a good wish. But it’s a very delicate task, and a long one. And one’s should think deeper before interfering in internal matter.

A last point, police should enforce a government law, how much imperfect could be this government. When ones, or a small group, pretends to apply “justice” only on his believing, it’s called another name…

[Djinn]

35. what do you mean should

the US sits back and "watches" it happen all the time - sometimes they even help it to occur, Cambodia being a case in point - the US perferred the murderous regime of Pol Pot to the Vietnamese invasion which put an end to the Year Zero nightmare for millions of Cambodians.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. We didn't in Eastern Europe

That is both recent and applicable.

[Djinn]

13. I'm no expert on WW2

but I'm pretty sure that until Pearl Harbour the US effectively DID ignore Nazi Germany, although relations were "cooled" they weren't ceased and US companies still traded with Axis combatants. After Pearl Harbour the US declared war on Japan - NOT Germany, the Germans declared war on the US because of their alliance with Japan not the other way around.

If you could ignore Hitler for 7 years that doesn't bode well for a "world policemen" role.

Nor does unilateral withdrawl from the World Court and the insistence that shuold any US forces be brought before the World Court the US would act to prevent a trial - up to and including military force.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Yes and no

Lend Lease enabled the U.S. to aid Britain and still stay technically neutral.

Most of the world ignored Hitler for several of those years. I don't think we should do it again.

[Djinn]

21. do think that the US would have gone to war

were it not for Pearl Harbour, call me a cynic but I SERIOUSLY doubt it.

US was also trading with Axis nations pre-Pearl Harbour

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Yes

Our neutrality was sketchy at best. We were in the process of re-arming, but that took time. Pearl Harbor speeded the effort and brought both left and right into line.

Sooner or later our trade with Britain would have caused problems with Germany.

[DFLer4edu]

33. You're analogy is faulty

in that America was not the military power it is today before WWII. Also, if Japan had not attacked the US and assuming Hitler triumphed in Germany, do you really think he was going to stop there? The pre WWII logic operates on the flawed logic of isolationism.

[Djinn]

37. and yours is fantasy

Hitler's territorial ambitions did reach further than they ever got but they NEVER reached as far as the US.

Australia & New Zealand were certainly also not military powers (still aren't) yet they sacrificed their young men in HUGE numbers in relation to population size to fight a war on the other side of the world while the US was still trading with ALL sides

[atreides1]

27. President Bartlett isn't real, and NBC Land isn't either.

If Japan had not attacked the US, what possible excuse would there have been to go to war against Germany.

And please don't use the concentration camp/humanitarian situation.
If I remember my history the US refused to increase the number of visas issued to German Jews, even though other countries were not using their allotments of visas.

Also, the US hasn't shown much interest in humanitarian situations, unless it's in line with the National Interest. Remember Rwanda and the 800,000 people that died there, not in the National Interest of the US to get involved.

Because of equipment that had a dual use purpose, at least 500,000 children died of cholera in Iraq, that's a real humnaitarian thing
to do. Deny life saving equipment, because it might potentially be used as a weapon.

And let's not forget our new friends in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan,
places where dissent doesn't exist because it's not allowed. But those dictators are just fine with George and Company, at least for the next twenty years. Then we can say we're removing them from power because they have killed their own people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Unfortunately, Bartlett isn't real

Survival would have been our reason to fight Germany and Japan -- since they were trying to conquer the globe.

The fact that the U.S. and the rest of the world turned away Jewish immigrants is well documented and horrible. That means we should do what we can to prevent another such occurance.

The question remains SHOULD we stop such events. The answer remains YES.

[DFLer4edu]

36. Just because we don't doesn't mean we can't!

We would have gone to war with Germany when they attacked us and they would have. Just because we didn't get involved in Rwanda isn't to say that we couldn't have. Just because we didn't let Iraq have the equipment doesn't mean we couldn't have let them have it. As for the support of dictators, we shouldn't support them, we should work for democracy. This should all be done with an international coalition.

[Djinn]

38. I'm no isolationist either

but it's not a case of either be an isolationist or be "the world's copper"

The German military command (whatever their putrid politics and barbarism) weren't stupid. An American invasion or attack didn't enter their minds

to your statement "As for the support of dictators, we shouldn't support them" agreed but the problem is you regularly do (as does my own country, see our shameful toadying to Suhartoe) which gives you a wee credibility problem as a "policeman"

[DFLer4edu]

55. I don't support them

my government does.

[DFLer4edu]

31. I'm with you

I think that we must intervene whenever it is necessary. I have not seen an episode of West Wing where Bartlett is faced with a humanitarian crisis and the use of force. I do know that he is a bit of a war hawk though. Nevertheless, the show always has interesting insights and in the case of genocide we should use whatever force is necessary to stop it. Glad to meet another West Wing fan!

[ulTRAX]

5. "policeman" is a LOADED term

Do you mean someone to enforce international law...???

Otherwise the notion that the US is the World's Policeman is a loaded question implying that whatever we do is to defend some legitimate "law".

Given this question was raised during Vietnam... what "laws" were we upholding?

[RafterMan]

47. Well, technically

North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam and funded an insurgency there. If that's to be considered legal, then the US has nothing to worry about.

[ulTRAX]

62. technically....

Ike sabotaged the internationally supervised elections that were to reunite north and south because he knew Ho Chi Minh would win.

[MrPrax]

54. Good point...

I think if folks dwelt on the 'policeman' part they would find quite a few problems with this 'phrase'

You point out one? Which law are they enforcing?

1) police are hired by civillians who have some control over their activities (priorities set by police boards, restraint on high speed chases)?
2) police don't normally assume the role of judge, jury (usually have to get warrants)
3) police usually have some restraint over their conduct; they are obliged not to kill innocent taxpayers--imagine if the cops tried to get a car theft and blew away a bunch of people in a mall parking lot, cop wouldn't last long
4) police run the risk of incarceration IF they break the law under a civillian authority...
5) and in a democracy most don't think it is the cops role to be involved in promoting political policies of individual parties

If the US military is the world's cop, then what are colombia, iraq, haiti, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan - community 'policing' offices?

[Dark]

6. No!

Being a world policeman is the UN's job. Using our forces to police other countries puts Americans in jeporady, at home and abroad.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. The UN has no army

And Africa is a prime example of what happens when it is left to the UN -- nothing.

They have slavery, an AIDS crisis that is killing millions and civil war that is doing its best to catch up with AIDS.

[bpilgrim]

11. the UN has access to PEACE KEEPERS

though the US is OFTEN an OBSTACLE to peace in MANY parts of the world and since we have a PERMENANT VETO option on the SECURITY COUNCIL the UN is often UNDERMINED.

whan can a UN do when the worlds lone super power runs amok?

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Peacekeepers come from the member nations

And aren't an organized military force. That's why they typically defer to the major nations like the U.S. or France to intervene if it looks like combat is likely.

[Dark]

12. The United nations DOES have the support of the rest of the world.

And Iraq is a prime example of what happens when the US acts as a lone policeman without the UN. The people in the country see us as occupiers, not liberators and rebel against us.

[wuushew]

20. Republicans make it impossible to help Africa effectively

"Doing something" appeared to be the chief fear of the Clinton administration, which was still reeling from the "Blackhawk Down" incident, in which 18 U.S. troops were killed and some of their bodies mutilated while on a supposedly humanitarian mission in Somalia just six months before.

That event, which resulted in moving up U.S. plans to withdraw from Somalia, also generated enormous pressure from Congress to establish strict new conditions under which the president could provide U.S. troops for U.N. peacekeeping operations.

Believing that it could not rally congressional or popular support behind any U.S. action in Rwanda under these circumstances, the administration not only encouraged UNAMIR to withdraw its forces, but also repeatedly opposed other nations' efforts at the U.N. Security Council to authorize a new intervention, at least until the genocidal forces were chased out of the country by the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Forces (RPF) rebel army.



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0406-08.htm

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. So, if Republicans are against aiding Africa

Why do so many here agree?

[wuushew]

39. Because the historical execution has sucked

and despite the great myths about our country we have been screwing people over since the birth of our nation. The American mindset today is little different then what it was in 1898, again a Republican President is launching or corporate crusade in the name of freedom while a smart intelligent Democratic challenger attempts to bring light to pitfalls of such a policy.

The obstacles faced by Clinton were not merely Republican in nature...the death of 18 Americans in Somalia resulted in stronger public opinion then the 700 killed in Iraq. Racism and love of militarism are perhaps deeply embedded in the American psyche.

In an earlier post you stated that America intervenes when its economic interests are at stake. Even those who except that our endeavor in Iraq is a worthy humanitarian effort, the fact we chose to intervene there instead of some other third world disaster is in itself insulting. If a country truly claims to have humanitarian beliefs, then the degree of suffering should dictate when and where such operations are carried out.

While good foreign policy often yields win-win outcomes, it is not hard to understand why in the middle East the idea that we are stealing the oil is prevalent.

In my opinion the overarching theme of American foreign policy is one of deluded self-righteousness which has incorporated the concept of exceptional-ism to explain why the idea of spreading American values has not meshed with reality. For fifty years we had a cold war. Since beating communism was more important than human rights we had a free hand to sponsor atrocities in Central America. Cold War mentality which after struggling to find a successor during the Clinton administration has been replaced by anti-Islam-ism a perpetual bogey man that allows us to intervene unilaterally in the affairs of sovereign countries.


Helping the World starts by increasing foreign aid, actively supporting the U.N. and only using military action in defense of a sovereign country not to destroy despotic regimes just because we don't like them.

[Solon]

50. We don't agree...

However I do not think our country is upfront and honest about it. We have a long history that is countinuing to this day of economic imperialism. Call me a cynic, but I do not trust my government to be altrustic in its motives, we are a nation that is reactionary in its foriegn policy and only act in the "Nation's(Corporation in need insert here) best interests".

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. So how do you explain Eastern Europe

And our intervention there?

[Minstrel Boy]

34. A cop on the take.

US interests would always hold the trump cards. What kind of a policeman is that?

[aneerkoinos]

42. No.

Yankee go home.

[markomalley]

57. The question doesn't go far enough...

...Kerry needs to get rid of the military as an offensive force. Then some future generation of freep-friendly administration (of either party) won't have the ability to misuse it -- because it won't be there to misuse. As long as the power is available, it will be a temptation.

This is not to say that we should leave ourselves defenseless...but our military should be structured so that it will be impractical to use it outside of our borders. This should probably be done under UN supervision, so the world will know we are sincere about it.

[Selwynn]

58. It can't be either or...

...with our great privilege and power comes responsibility too I believe. There are some crimes against humanity so severe that they require the action of capable people. The real issue should be what our motivation for action really is. And our action should be in concert with the international community to defend human rights in the face of things such as genocide.

Again, the real question should be what our motives are for intervention, and how we go about intervention. Intervention in the name of imperialism is not appropriate. Intervention in concert with the international community via the United Nations in certain situations where the cost of doing nothing would be so inhumane as to necessitate some kind of world response is not only appropriate, it is morally necessary.

The choices shouldn't be either isolationism or imperialism. There should be a middle ground for action of a humanitarian nature in cooperation with other nations and through a multilateral governing agency such as the UN.

[markomalley]

59. But we have already shown we do not have the wisdom...

...to take that role. We have abused the veto power we have in the UN all throughout our time there. We have vetoed condemnations of our friends and us, have been totally unaccountable for the abuses we have committed and have tolerated, and have shut down worthy humanitarian operations when needed.

That is why I said what I did in my earlier post (one up from you). Maybe I didn't go far enough...maybe Kerry should voluntarily relinquish our permanent membership in the Security Council with its veto as reparations for our country's foolishness in the past.

[Mick Knox]

60. i'm also not an isolationist and feel the poll is

not thorough with a misleading title.

Just because some actions/admins may be dicked up doesnt mean or imply that all of them are.

[0007]

61. This will be the down fall of this country in my opinion