Vote 5 if you agree that a plank in our platform should be for the U.S. to step back from the world and stop trying to be the World's Policeman.
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
Vote 5 if you agree that a plank in our platform should be for the U.S. to step back from the world and stop trying to be the World's Policeman.
I added this one from the supermajority topics.
To join the U08 Delegate Council Online Community send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.comIf there were some way to offload it or at least get others to do their share, that would be great.
As the dominate world power it's our "job".
Like JackPhillipsII "If there were some way to offload it or at least get others to do their share, that would be great."
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
I do think we could close a lot of bases world wide and keep our people close to real trouble spots. Why are we in Europe at all? That makes no sense. It's like most government programs, we just do it because it's habit.
A Democrat seeks complex solution to simple problems
A Republican seeks simple solutions to complex problems
A reasonable person seeks simple solutions for solvable problems
There are many places we probally do not need to be at.
If those bases are closed, we could then send those troops to the areas they are needed
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
A wise friend of mine from France, when discussing US involvement in the mideast stated that all great nations will experiment in colonialism, if only because they can. France, like Britain, eventually had to make a choice between nation and empire.
If we look back at history, we'll see such colonial experiments and find much common ground in the way those efforts were initiated, and marketed to their citizens. The first and foremost rule is that no nation will ever speak of their adventures as colonialism. Instead it's usually filed under the umbrella of "what's in our national interest." From such a concept arises a great question: at what point does one nation's self-interest become another's tyranny?
It's likely that we're at those crossroads and we're going to have to make that epic choice. Which one will we choose?
For those interested, here's an insightful article regarding the end of France's colonial experiment in Algeria, which has many parallels to our involvement in Iraq:
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_04_23/article.html
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
Intresting point
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Britain, France, Rome and Azteks were, but US is not. Required by definition "colonies milked by metropoly" process is absent from the view in US case.
And the corresponding discussion was in another thread of this forum (about Foreighn relations)
Just what does it mean to not want to be the World's Policeman? This short beginning to the 21st century is revealing in that previous commonly understood definitions are changing. Hard to vote for something that may appear to be straightforward in its intent but, is very ambiguous in its application. The difficulty is similar to the inadequate and unstructured voting system in place on this website. Excuse me, I digress as I appeal to the Rules Committee for clarity on how the "one person one-vote" principle operates in this forum.
That being said, there is merit in considering how we might define World's Policeman. If what GP stated, "all great nations will experiment in colonialism, if only because they can" is an accurate statement about how a World's Policeman operates; then we must find a policy that makes that behavior more difficult for our leaders to pursue. The time for experiment has passed. However, if it means that we suddenly forget about the greatest concentration of nuclear weapons the world has ever seen and unilaterally withdraw from Europe as John Ashman would like, then I am against this policy.
Any platform plank that arises out of this discussion must understand that the world is flat (The World Is Flat, Thomas L. Friedman). The globalization of the world economy requires that (like GP's thoughts) we deliniate conditions under which we are pursuing our national self-interest balanced against a flailing tyrannical adventuristic policy. Or, in my opinion, worse yet is a policy that uses national resources to protect the economic self-interest of American based Multi-national corporations.
For the sake of this discussion, I am going to merely mention Constitutional issues inre to a party platform plank that supposes we can merely vote here for our foreign policy. Regardless of our ability to agree on such a policy, the Constitution gives certain powers to the President to make foreign policy and to take action as Commander-in-Chief. While Congress has the ability to maintain a check on Presidential powers through its oversight responsibilities, legislative purse-string responsibilities, and its power to declare war (which it obviously has not had the will to implement); any guidelines developed here will have to remember its limited influence on those things that one could consider to be World Policeman duties.
The following is the beginning of a guidelines list that cover the reasons why we get involved in world entanglements. These are off the top of my head and I am sure there are many more. Maybe by listing and discussing the guideless under which we would be willing to take proactive measures, we might avoid continuing as the "World's Policeman." I am not confident that we can agree on definitive guidelines for some categories but, here goes:
a) Agression - attacks on us
b) Security Weaknesses - e.g. Porous Border
c) Weapons of Mass Destruction - in the hands of unfriendly nations
d) Extremism (Terrorism is merely the means to an end.)
- State Sponsored
- Group Sponsored
e) Alliance Agreements
a) Economic?
b) ?
GEA, before I vote, I just want to be sure that when you say "World's Policeman" that your understanding resembles what I think the phrase means.
Nicely said, John (as always). I think your question mark in item 2B could be something like "Perception" along the lines of a "new America" that works to shed monikers like "World's Policeman" and replace it with ones like "Best Neighbor."
But along with that the policy should match the words. It shouldn't be some Orwellian "War is Peace" mechanism, but rather a true effort to act in our nation's best interest through means of open social investment/assistance, not the covert and clandestine operations of the past.
The US does in fact expend a lot of money and effort towards good causes in many countries. A case in point: Doctors without Borders is an international and highly respected organization. 20% of it's funding comes from constributions from US citizens. But our large part, and the goodwill that might come from it, can be trumped or erased by the "Bad America" behavior, by the simple truism that people remember bad behavior much more than good behavior.
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
That is why we need to start delineating a Centrist "tent-stakes" for a Bipartisan Grand Strategy that will get us through some tough times ahead GP. I like the Princeton Project Report as a possible Unity strawman we could use esp their Criteria at the end (see below criteria). They delineate 3 main goals firmly based on our National Interests 1) A Secure Homeland; 2) a Healthy Globals Economy; and 3) A Benign International Environment.
Forging A World Of Liberty Under Law U.S. National Security In The 21st Century Final Report of the Princeton Project on National Security
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/report/FinalReport.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------
Criteria For A Successful Grand Strategy
1. Multidimensional: Post-9/11, America has understandably been focused overwhelmingly on terrorism. But a successful long-term national security strategy must be a post-post-9/11 strategy. It must take into account the totality of America’s interests and be able to meet multiple threats and challenges simultaneously. It must be coherent and based on a set of overarching principles, but must also function like a Swiss army knife, able to deploy different tools for different situations on a moment’s notice. We must be serious about terrorism but serious too about East Asia, pandemic disease, and globalization. It is neither safe nor wise to identify only one enemy and to prepare single-mindedly to confront it. We must instead identify an entire range of threats, hone our capacity to assess their relative risk, and then develop a diversified portfolio of strategies to address them as they arise.
2. Integrated: U.S. strategy must integrate our hard power with what Joseph Nye has called our soft power, allowing us to use all of our assets in pursuit of our objectives. This effort requires devoting as much attention to bolstering the civilian components of our national security infrastructure as to strengthening the military. Our soft power is our power to get what we want by attracting others to the same goals, rather than bending them to our will. It requires careful attention to how others may perceive us differently than we perceive ourselves, no matter how good our intentions. It also requires regular communication and engagement among U.S. officials and their foreign counterparts in formal and informal networks, listening as well as talking. Finally, it means drawing not only on government, but also on the assets and initiative of both the private and non-profit sectors.
3. Interest-Based, Not Threat-Based: To create maximum points of engagement and leverage, a successful strategy must begin by identifying and pursuing common interests with other states rather than insisting that they accept our prioritization of common threats. Even where other nations agree, for instance, on the need to fight terrorism, they may rank the rise of a neighboring power, environmental dangers, disease, disruption of their energy supply, or other threats as higher priorities. Finding ways to develop frameworks of cooperation based on common interests with individual nations or groups of nations minimizes frictions, maximizes common assets, and increases the likelihood of cooperative deployment of those assets to achieve common objectives.
4. Grounded in Hope, Not Fear: Focusing on threats, and above all insisting on the preeminence and global scope of one specific threat, feeds a pervasive sense of fear. U.S. strategy must advance the larger and more positive purposes behind our power. America has never defined those purposes in purely defensive or protective terms. We have also sought to stand for a particular set of values in the world and to promote those values in ways consistent with our security and our morals. That is why Americans so readily see U.S. power as a force for good. The most enduring source of American national security is to do everything possible to ensure that citizens of other countries see U.S. power the same way, not only so that they do not perceive us as a threat and balance against us, but also so that they are willing to join their power with ours in the service of larger common goals.
5. Pursued Inside Out: Increasingly, what happens inside states matters to the United States as much as what happens between them. Our vulnerability to terrorist attacks, for instance, depends upon the capability and intentions of police forces in countries like Pakistan and Indonesia, while our vulnerability to global pandemics depends upon the strength of the public health systems in China and Thailand. However, the United States is often ill-equipped to influence the domestic development of an adversary or rival, both because other states are suspicious of American motives and because of the limits of relying primarily upon military power. Squaring this circle is a necessary and critical step. U.S. strategy must include the creation of institutions and mechanisms whereby the international community as a whole can help strengthen government capacity and encourage sound practices within states without using force or illegitimate modes of coercion.
6. Adapted to the Information Age: A national security strategy for the 21st century must operate in a world where information moves instantly, actors respond to it instantly, and where all the major actors are connected in real time, allowing individual decisions to become mass movements in weeks and months rather than years. Where specialized small units come together for only a limited time for a defined purpose – whether to make a deal, restructure a company, or plan and execute a terrorist attack. In this world, we need to be fast, flexible, and nimble, capable of grouping and regrouping as necessary and capable of coordinating many different actors engaged in a common effort. We also need to be able to “know what we know:” to figure out quickly and efficiently what information we have and to transmit it to everyone who needs to know it and to figure out what information we do not have and how to get it.
---------------------------------------------------------
Spreading Governmental Reform Abroad
In a world of popular, accountable, and rights-regarding (PAR) governments, the United States would have many more, and more effective, partners in our efforts to fight terrorism, nuclear proliferation, pandemic disease, economic crises, and a host of other threats. The best way to help bring governments up to PAR is to connect them and their citizens in as many ways as possible to governments and societies that are already at PAR and to provide them with incentives and support to follow suit. We need to create these myriad points of on the common interests shared by the United States and any particular country or group of countries and then devising the policies and mechanisms necessary to pursue those interests.
Working System of International Institutions
We need a system of effective global institutions to harness cooperation on problems we simply cannot tackle unilaterally or even bilaterally. These institutions cannot all be formal organizations. On the contrary, harnessing cooperation in the 21st century will require many new kinds of institutions, many of them network-based, to provide speed, flexibility, and context-based decision making tailored to specific problems. This combination of institutions, and the habits and practices of cooperation that they would generate – even amid ample day-to-day tensions and diplomatic conflict – would represent the infrastructure of an overall international order that provides the stability and governance capacity necessary to address global problems. (UN, NATO, Intl finance and Econ Orgs etc)
Role of Force
At their core, both liberty and law must be backed up by force. Domestically, this is why the state maintains a police force and a military. At the international level, of course, no such enforcement mechanism exists. A national security strategy dedicated to forging a world of liberty under law must reckon with the necessity and perils of the use of force both within nations – to safeguard liberty and uphold the rule of law – and among them – to ensure that some nations cannot destroy the liberty of all.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
John definitely has a lot of good thoughts but, my name is Phil. I think you have a good thought in placing a positive concept (Good Neighbor) in 2B that also seems to fit well with the Grand Strategy toward foreign policy that John Milligan supports. I like the multi-dimensional approach emphasizing more widespread use of "soft" measures in the conduct of policy. Big broad military swipes at policy have given us the "World's Policeman" mantle that has not served us well through the years. This is particularly obvious as we have seen the unanticipated growth of anti-Americanism the world over.
Your "Best Neighbor" thought under our National Interests seems like a good fit for a policy that would cultivate the common interests we have with other nations.
What we need is to focus on one key thing - The National Interest - and not things like this World policemen stuff, withdraw from iraq, invade iran, ban preemption, support isolation, etc. What is Prime and essential above ALL is to do in Foreign Affairs WHAT is in our National Interest - and no more or no less THAT which assures our National Interest is realized as long as it accords with our values asa nation and synchs with what we are capable and CAN do. For As Rory Stewart said - "we have no moral obligation to do, what we cannot do." So Natioanl interest assurance is the KEY and a Grand Strategy to acheive that is the GOAL!!
http://unity08.com/node/1083
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Just saying NATIONAL INTEREST is a good start but, it doesn't tell us much of anything. Since we are capable of doing so much on the world stage, the phrase has been expanded to mean so much that not only is it bluring our vision as a people, it is engendering anti-Americanism the world over.
To that point Phil, below is a good analysis of Afgan. Stewart's last paragrapgh is directly applicable on what we need to start todo Strategy-Wise. That and reread George Kennan circa late 1940s who wrastled with the same "National Interest" dilemmas in delineating a cogent and coherent bipartisan Containment Srategy.
Rory Stewart (knows the areas and what he speaks) piece on the current situation in Afgan is excellent and points out to BOTH the extreme sides of this debate the fact that we do need above all cogent well thoughtout multi-dimensional strategy rather than repeating the mistakes we experience in Iraq without one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23stewart.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Some excepts:
"Our best hope in Afghanistan is to continue to manage the country through a light civil and military presence. Southern Afghanistan will remain unstable for some time to come. Although we cannot change this, we can contain the situation...."
"Our best hope is rather to focus on the many secure and welcoming parts of Afghanistan’s center and north. Efforts to jumpstart local economies led by members of those communities are more effective, more relevant and more sustainable than those dictated by outsiders. We have a great opportunity in the north, center and west of Afghanistan to lead development projects for which Afghans will still be grateful 50 years from now."
"This does not mean that we should withdraw and partition the country, or that the Pashtun south is doomed. But only the Afghans have the power to end the insurgency and create a stable and democratic south. It will not be easy. Residents have not yet mobilized effectively against the Taliban. Other Afghan ethnic groups still see the insurgency as a Pashtun problem and would rather not be involved. Twenty-five years of war has left a power vacuum. Politicians concerned with Afghanistan continue to underestimate the power and autonomy of provincial groups and the appeal of tribe and religion."
"Stabilizing southern Afghanistan will require uncomfortable compromises. It will certainly take 20 years for Afghanistan to develop an economy to match even Bangladesh, or a civil service or military to match that of Pakistan. In the meantime, the Pashtun areas may remain as wild and unstable as the tribal areas of Pakistan. But Afghanistan on the whole can become more stable, more humane and more prosperous than it is today."
"American-led military occupations and counterinsurgency campaigns are unsustainable and counterproductive, not just in Iraq or Afghanistan but in all nationalist Muslim countries. But this is not a call for disengagement."
"We need a new strategy that can be applied not only in Iraq but also in Pakistan and wherever else these threats emerge. It should not rely on large amounts of troops and money but on intelligence, pragmatic politics, savvy use of our development assistance and on special forces operations. Rather than throwing more troops at Afghanistan and turning it into a second Iraq, we should use it as a model for a lighter, smarter approach."
Rory Stewart is the author of “The Places in Between” and “The Prince of the Marshes.”
----
So where are our George Kennan's CIRCA 2024 when we really need them?? We need to learn how to USE the locals, learn their interests and see that many of their and ours may be in accord. That is what Kennan did in his Grand Strategy and what we need to NOW!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
John,
I think the best grand strategy is simple and straightforward, if Americans are cerdibly threatened on American Soil, we want the threat eliminated. Nothing more, nothing less.
That is the definition of National Interest to me, so we may be saying the same thing.
Although if you apply that logic, Afganistan poses no current threat, nor does Iraq. But Pakistan may.
To join the U08 Delegate Council Online Community send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
GEA, I think National Interest/Grand Strategy is a tad more complex than just limiting it to "credible threats." In any strategy we will need to prioritize into our Primary, secondary, and tertiary interests. Granted the direct credible threats are primary, but there are a hosts of secondary, tertiary ones (economic, financial, environmental, political, diplomatic, military, etc) that if allowed to fester unaddressed can rise up and bite us and become Primary. That is what happened many times in our recent 20th century experience and I see no reason to think the 21st Century will be any different. In an interdependent world much is interconnected and we need a strategy that sorts out and proritizes. Also there are a host of substate virulent insurgent actors that hide in failed states and could impinge on our Primary thru tertiary interests in many ways. I'm not saying we need to eliminate all these threats but just contain and deal realistically with them where we can thru a well-informed coherent realism-based strategy.
See: http://unity08.com/node/1129
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I agree with other commenters, simply saying "National Interest: isn't going to do it because different people have different views of "National Interest."
To me its simple to see what the american public is asking --- if American Citizens are endangered on American soil, we fight, otherwise we don't. This has been a truth as far back in polling as I can see. Now some politicians convince us that something endangers us and we support war, but when we find out its not true, we pull back our support.
So the response to a threat (or perceived or manufactured threat) must deal with the concept that when the threat is neutralized, we want hostilities to cease. Look at Iraq, we wanted hostilities to cease as soon as the government was deposed and the threat of WMD use against the USA was diminished. The concept of using air strikes to neutralize threats has always been well supported. Ground troops, less so.
Again its a simple concept, if we are threatened on our soil, we want the threat eliminiated. Once that is done, we stop. I really don't think that we care a wit about what happens next in a region, blood bath, rearmament, etc etc. If that region becomes a threat again, we respond again to neutralize the threat.
This thinking is well supported by opinion polls over time in the US, most often at the supermajority level.
To join the U08 Delegate Council Online Community send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
We need to reduce the scope of our military, but I think we would need the Europeans to step forward to pull this off without too many bad consequences.
Without European allies, who do we have, Russia, India, Turkey?
Our next President needs to be superb in Foreign affairs. I am hoping for the best.
In a better world we could get G.H.W. Bush back in office, but not in this world.
We will need ALL the tools at our disposal to assure our national interests and a paeceful decinderized world. The dimensions will involve a cogent and internally consistent mix of ecomonic, political, diplomatic, social, cultural, educational, and military aspects. There will probably have to be elements of preeemption as well as element of withdrawal as the circumstances dictate. Coalitions will be essential esp with the locals who can provide the best intel on these nasties and thugs in the far ramparts.
What Bush and Company have failed miserably at is the unidimensional aspect of his Keystone Cop Seat-of-the-pants "Non Strategy" where we did not sufficiently incorporate the Locals like Jim Baker did in Gulf War I or how we did throughout the Cold War. Bush 2 and Company blew the diplomacy big time in the leadup to Iraq and our Non-Strategy had an overly military oriented "do it on the cheap" and "do it mostly on our own" tinge.
I think we are learning some hard hard lessons in Iraq due to Bush's incompetency but I think we will right the ship. The Iraq Study Group is very a good start but just a start. This is where Unity can help in elevating the good doable multidimensional bipartisan ideas on assuring our National Interests thru a workable Grand Strategy that matches/synchs our "Oughta dos" with our "Can dos" in a bipartisan way that is true to our values as a Nation. THAT is what George Kennan did so well and we need to do as wel now more than ever. But to do that we will need ALL the tools in our quiver. Do not preclude any!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I see what you write John, and I think I understand it. But you are discussing this only after the assumption that somehow we have the "right" to intervene in the world.
I don't think we have that right. And to intervene where there is no right makes it wrong. When we are wrong, we lack the moral standing required to garner widespread public support.
Not to mention that the vast bulk of Americans agree with ending our "World's Policeman" stance.
To join the U08 Delegate Council Online Community send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
At this time we are the leading world power (that can change almost instantly), and with that comes the job of being the "world police".
It's isn't the most desired job title because it does bring a good deal of negativity to our good name.
I will admit mistakes were made in the past (not just the Middle East), but that does not mean we can redeem ourselves and re-work how we handle situations.
Once again, whoever is the world power at any giving moment has to act as the "world’s police". The two go hand and hand.
----JOIN MY UNITY 08 TRAILBLAZER GROUP AT unity08trailblazers.com/teams/zappafication----
------MY MYSPACE www.myspace.com/themanwhohasnoname orE-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Your arguement has no substance and your position is not well supported by the majority.
To join the U08 Delegate Council Online Community send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
"One of the best reasons to question something is because everyone else is doing it" --Penn Juliette
And it does have substance; maybe I'm not expressing my views properly through typing.
It's the truth, as a leading world power it is our job to Bash AND Destroy assholes like Islamic Extremist (not the inocent that are stuck living with them).
I will admit that the present government most likely/did make some mistakes, but they were right when the invaded the Middle East to fight these extremist. You have to remember they flow 747's into the twin towers (don't forget their first attempt to knock it down when they bombed the underground parking garage).
Not only as a world power, but also as a country we can not let people do such things. It does suck that we are stuck in a war were the enemy is hard to find kind of like Vietnam, which was a complete police action and probably not the best move. This situation is different though, we were attacked on our own soil, nobody, and I mean nobody does that to America.
And if your one of these idiots who thinks that the government caused 911, I have nothing else to say to you. NO OFFENCE, YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO YOUR OWN OPION, AS DO I.
----JOIN MY UNITY 08 TRAILBLAZER GROUP AT unity08trailblazers.com/teams/zappafication----
------MY MYSPACE www.myspace.com/themanwhohasnoname orE-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
The majority cares if they support it. How else do you think we can win an election? By taking positions not supported by the majority??
To join the U08 Delegate Council Online Community send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
"One of the best reasons to question something is because everyone else is doing it" --Penn Juliette
If the majority wanted to convert to a dictatorship, would you support that?
All I saying is that at this moment there is a problem in the Middle East, and we belong there.
I will admit SOMETIMES WE DO GET A LITTLE OVERZEALOUS; we just have to pick our fights better.
For the most part we do leave other countries alone, unless they threaten us or threaten other people’s rights (no matter whom they are or where they live).
We can not just sit back and let Warlords dominate people of their nation, people like that have to be stop. Sadly, it is up to us most of the time for the simple reason that other countries decide it is not our fight. If everyone just sat back and did nothing to stop such "leaders" we could very well end up with another Hitler.
When the term "World Police" is used it gives the impression that we want to trample on others rights and control the entire world. But, that's not what we want; we are simply trying our best to ensure everyone has the right to live the way they want.
Once again, in the future we just have to pick our fights better and handle them better.
Wouldn't you agree that it would be in mankind’s best interest if everyone lives in system like our own (NOT that we should FORCE other countries to do things OUR WAY)
----JOIN MY UNITY 08 TRAILBLAZER GROUP AT unity08trailblazers.com/teams/zappafication----
------MY MYSPACE www.myspace.com/themanwhohasnoname orE-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Yes, I would agree that a freedom and liberty create the best foundations of a nation and that other nations would be smart to follow that model.
However, to follow that model, it takes guts, determination and most likely conflict within the country. So unless the citizenry do it, no one else can. How can we do it when we are not them??
The premise that we can somehow cure the ills of other nations is absurd as curing their own ills is the only path I know of to freedom.
To join the U08 Delegate Council Online Community send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
The premise that we can somehow cure the ills of other nations is absurd as curing their own ills is the only path I know of to freedom.
It seems to me that arguing against US being the policeman you are in fact arguing about tasks, no policeman can and should be charged with.
Policeman is concerned with peaceful communications between people. He will hunt down killers, robbers and cheaters (who violate contracts, does not pay taxes or alimonies, etc.).
Sure, he will not try to change person’s character, level of education, to find him a job or an affordable dentist. It does not even watch if person behaves at his own table and whether he takes the shower daily.
Similarly, US can be a good World Policeman and totally ignore internal affairs of different states.
Surprisingly, this is precisely what US does.
Just look at our strategic ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia. How about 3/4 of Africa nations we can not get enough of sending aid to?
But protecting international energy markets, financial markets, intercontinental delivery of goods and of information is a different matter. This is where world policeman should guarantee at least basic order.
Now it is similar to maintaining order at the public square.
And protecting these world traffics has a selfish element to it – these very communications, if broken, will painfully hit not only Chinese, Europeans and Africans, but Americans as well.
Policing the World US is essentially protecting itself with a very nice side effect for all other nations, who get this order for free.
It the past the same role was played by British Empire and US could benefit from the order in International commerce without paying for its maintenance. After WWII Great Britain had retired, taking some hourly job on a side.
It would be nice to pass these responsibilities to somebody and enjoy the free ride once again.
Unfortunately, there are no good candidates who can and will take this hard job.
Maybe Chinese, but in their next non-communist generation.
You use the British Empire as a positive model of why we should police the world? I would use it as the opposite, why policing the world gets you into more trouble than its worth because its a lose-lose proposition.
I do agree withiyr basic premise though that what has evolved into "the world's policman" is a set of tasks that are well beyond "policing."
Still though, to say that we somehow have the right to impose our set of laws on other nations doesn't pass my sniff test. Indeed, I don't think any nation would profit from the involvement of our judicial system/bar association; although our lawyers may profit greatly.
Now if you are talking about things like "international waters" etc. then there is a set of treaties associated with that which must be enforced by the treaty members.
To join the U08 Delegate Council Online Community send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Remember That the Brits gave the US cover in the 19th Century for our Monroe Doctrine as we insulated ourselves from Europes traumas. Their investmenst in these United States was key to our 19th century economic success. And I think that in India and SE Asia the overall effect of the Brits was good as a stabilizing force given the alternatives. China and the Mid-East the picture is not although after WWI the Brits did not do much worse than the Turks. There are definite successes we can take away from the Brits as we learn from their mistakes.
There is no way anyone can be the World's so-called "Policemen" as events realistically in far ramparts cannot be controlled but they can be influenced. the Brits did not control but figured out a way to influence and above all USE the LOCALS better than anyone. That we can learn from! The model we can learn from might be Containment repurposed and redefined for the new age and new threat. And a quick look at our own History in settlement of the lawless Wild West is instructive. We largely used Local Posses and Sherriffs and gave them first crack and tamping down the lawless. When things got out of hand and the locals absolutely could not handle then they would call in the cavalry. Thatt worked pretty well and should consider our own lessons of experience
Containment will need to be redefined a tad to do what needs to be done against the new jihadi/salafi/hirabist insurgent threat of the 21st Century for sure. To contain these now amorphous felxible insurgent forces and salafi franchise groups around the world we need to use ALL the arrows in our quiver and tie them to a new Strategy is multidimensional (ecomonical, political, social, cultural, diplomatic, and military) and fully funded and bipartisan and above all sobeerness and patience. That is what Containment did in the Cold War above all and that is what we need now.
For sure there is no distinct clearly defined "States" as you had in the Communist realms, but you still have failed states that these substate actors groups thrive in. A new "Containment" for these new threats will entail a more flexible Strategy on containing them in certain areas and maybe preempting them in others depending on the circumstances of the Threat. It's not a one stop shopping type of thing just like contain in the Cold war scenario was. That Strategy was a combo of both that strove (sometimes times haphazaedly and sometimes very successfully) to tamp down communist led insurgencies all over the globe. But one concept we could repurpose and use from that Cold War Containment Strategy is what I would call - USE THE LOCALS.
The locals are best equipped to have the intel on the insurgents and the local knowledge of the cultural context these insurgent groups operate in. We need to do much better in learning about the locals,their cutlture, their aspirations/interests, and identifying the key players at the local level, andusing that local resources to tamp down the jihadi insurgent threat. All politics is local and all jihadi insurgencies are local as well and cannot thrive without good local support of some sort. We like to do things on the cheap (See Rumsfeld Doctrine in Iraq), but this will be a long-term and not cheap effort. Unity candidates must be up front to the American people as to what this effort will entail.
A new Containment strategy of Local Use Posse Containment/Preemption is the key and that is what eventually brought down the Soviets and relegated Communism to the dustbin of History. It took a long time and great patience and deft use of the Locals. A reread of George Kennan might be in order by our candidates - still a good template to learn from in this new 21st century effort at Grand Strategy. He was 100 years ahed of his times.
The new "Containment" Strategy for the 21st century must (as George Kennan's was so brilliantly and as NSC68 was with the Soviets and Communits)be grounded in a solid and sober and dispassionate assesment of the sources of insurgent/slalafi/jiadi conduct. He did that so well with the Soviet threat and having first hand knowledge of the Russian Culture, Communist/Facist policies and practictioners was key. We have just started to make such and effort and there are good bipartisan Groups out there (Princeton Project, Richard Haass at CFR, Iraq Study Group, etc) that have made good solid starts around the periphery to this effort. Unity needs to tap in to those groups to start the discussion whereby an eventual Bipartisan Grand strategy can be delineated to counter the new threat. But above all we need to incorporate and USE THE LOCALS like the Brits did and like we did back in our History! That is the key to eventual victory over these jihadi/salafi/hirabist insurgent groups!! So I say NOT World's policemen but maybe World's Cavalry may be a good Strategic middle ground that matches our "Oughta Dos" and our "Can Dos"!!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Yikes, Geez John that's long.
Let me say this though --- I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it ;)
To join the U08 Delegate Council Online Community send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Originally I liked your analogy to cavalry. But now I see that you had made key assumptions which are not true.
Cavalry helped the locals to maintain or to reestablish order. In most cases it was called by locals when needed, if local sheriff did not have enough firepower to crash bad guys.
But it all worked only when locals were on the same page with Federal Government regarding law, moral, way of life.
Sheriff could call Cavalry to help to clear road from robbers. Farmers were able to call Cavalry to raid Indian camp if Indians were taking their stock (let’s not discuss here, who started the feud, because it is not the point).
Sheriff was not able to call Cavalry to help to make some human sacrifice. Indian tribes were not able to call Cavalry to help to raid couple white people’s farms. Mexican peasants were not able to call US Cavalry to fight even Mexican banditos, not to mention, to fight some US cawboys.
In short, Cavalry worked if there were lots of "our guys" and it helped only our guys to solve some issues with those, who was an outlaw from locals’ and from Cavalry commanders’ shared points of view.
Modern world is not like that. Believe systems with concept of “normal”, “good” and “evil” of different regions, civilizations and nations differ more than moral of white farmers and Indians in 18 century. And laws are different as well.
As the result, nobody would call Cavalry or Cavalry will find itself engaging in the local feud between rivaling parties, none of which is beneficial for international trade and order (Shia – Sunni in Iraq).
Should we plant “our guys” with out approach to the democracy, human rights, free trade all around the world before Cavalry concept become efficient? I do not think so, because it would mean from 30 to 60 nation building projects of the current Iraqi complexity or even higher. US simply do not have resources for that.
Policeman, on the other hand, does not have to be on the same page with every thug it puts into handcuffs or nocks down with the baton. On the other hand, he does not need to demand US style democracy from local countries. It is not his business. Good behavior toward neighbors is good enough for them to stay out of troubles.
Conclusion: World Policeman! It is too early for Cavalry concept
Playing the turtle is no good in a dangerous world. The concept of retreating into "Fortress America" died with our entry into WWII.
This dosen't mean we should stay involved indefinitely over in Iraq - but it would be foolish to wash our hands of involvement in all foreign affairs. We have a responsibility to protect our interests, and to assure that violence and human suffering is contained or eliminated whenever possible.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
I would use it ([British Empire]) as the opposite, why policing the world gets you into more trouble than its worth because its a lose-lose proposition.
Firstly, specific troubles policeman has are not
opposite– they come as part of the job description. Unfortunately, there were many policemen who were killed or shot at the job. It does not mean that our cities do not need police. Secondly, which troubles are you talking about regarding British Empire? 3 centuries of prosperity? Current pretty comfortable status among the richest counties of the world with high respect to human rights? It looks like that policeman enjoys a happy and well deserved retirement.I do agree with your basic premise though that what has evolved into "the world's policeman" is a set of tasks that are well beyond "policing."
I never said that. Quite the opposite, I had said that US indeed does the world policing for the last 50 years, but US’s intrusion into other’s countries internal affairs is just your imagination. US did such things only in self defense, as far as I can remember.
Do you have samples of where US forced other countries to change their political system?I have drastic examples of the opposite. US is/was not changing political system of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, USSR, China, India, Iraq. Yes, even Iraq after smashing defeat of their military force was offered to build their own country to their liking (only one requirement from US – no Al-Qaeda). The list above is not the list of bad or good countries (it is a different issue). That was the list of very different countries with political systems in all of them very different from US model. And US accepts them as partners just the way they are.US did changed political system of two strong enemies Germany and Japan. But, as we all know, US went to war with them not for that reason. US was really picky toward political systems established right by our borders (Central America and Caribbean islands), but this is a pure self-defense, you can not reject outright.
Now if you are talking about things like "international waters" etc. then there is a set of treaties associated with that which must be enforced by the treaty members.
Now it is my turn to LOL. Where and when had you seen that international community successfully enforced anything without US, acting as Policeman, has provided bulk of the forces? International community could not even protect Paris from Nazi Germany. With Policeman being too busy in other regions (Balkans or Iraq), the rest of the International Community just stayed idle and watch the genocide in Ruanda and in Sudan.
Do not count on International Community if, God forbid, US will not be able to serve as World Policeman and no other country will be ready to step up.
And the World Policeman analogy works there as well. Even armed to the teeth and generally responsible for their own actions Wild Wild West settlers needed a Sheriff to lead them to apprehend criminals. What to say about nations, who had lost ability to fight their own battles.
----JOIN MY UNITY 08 TRAILBLAZER GROUP AT unity08trailblazers.com/teams/zappafication----
------MY MYSPACE www.myspace.com/themanwhohasnoname orE-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Even though the movies is filled with stupid cheap shot humor, it still show both the good and bad of our actions as the "Worlds Police". In the long run we do mean well, and maybe we do need to handle the situtions we face a little better than we have in the past (everyone makes mistakes).
I'll paraphrase a quote from the movie, "The world is full of DICKS (that's us), A--HOLES, and PUS-IES. It is the DICKS job to F--K both the A--HOLES and the PUS-IES. Why, well the A--HOLES will SH-T on everything they can, and the PUS-IES won't lift a finger to stop them. And no one wants to live in a world that A--HOLES SH-T all over"
I hope I did not offend anyone, I tried to censor it as much as I could while trying to leave the basic message there. But in a CRAZY TWISTED way it makes complete sense.
But then again, it is just another stupid comedy.
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
new MYSPACE URL www.myspace.com/themanwhohasnoname
------MY MYSPACE was deleted. I dont know. E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
US mutinational corporations are colonizing the world through trade control. If we use US military to further the ends of US corporations we are partnering in imperialism. A reasonable argument can be made that we do. If you beleive in economic Darwinism, you would find no fault with that. But unchecked 98% of the world will be the slaves of 2% whether they know it or not.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
US corporations are colonizing the World not more than cab driver enslaves you on the way to airport. Reasonable people would call it a cooperation - you got yourself to the airport and driver got his money from you to mutual satisfaction.
Just ask Chinese and Indians with their people living better and better about US colonisation.
And Western Europe occupied by US after WWII does not look like struggling province of the Empire to me.
So, I wonder, where did you get your 98% of slave population?
I agree. Free Trade is the equalizer. And the Indians, Chinese, Japanese are beating us at our own game which is good. Emulation is the highest form of flatery and will make us all better in the long run. As Globalization proceeds we are experiencing a Prosperity that is unprecedented in Human History. However we must also realize at the same time that Two-Thirds of the worlds population has NEVER made a phone call. What was it that Dickens said "The Best of Times...The Worst of Times."
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I think this discussion has left the point that GEA initiated. Our Nation is in terrible debt, the infrastructure is full of bureaucracy and is weak, our international relationships are fractured and barely positive. I think that One way to strengthen all of that is to stop policing the world. I have heard Policing here to venture forth into colonization, imperialism, and tyranny … which is how much of the world views our actions. In order for Washington to agree I have to point out that the policing we do chiefly is stopping the group with the guns from killing those without them (this started in ww2 when we not defended ourselves from Japan, but also sent troops to aid the allies).
I do think that we need to continue this policing, protecting the defenseless; however, we need to withdraw from the imperilization that our military has indirectly done. Currently “the sun never sets on America,” we have military outposts worldwide. Do we need some of them, YES!!! However we have a force that could rebuild our infrastructure quickly. We have had many tragedies recently that could have been avoided if we had less people overseas and in stead funded them to fix bridges, build/ reinforce levies, put out wildfires. The fall of most of the past great world powers happened not because they were defeated from outside … they grew too big and collapsed on themselves. What would happen if those we owed money to all called in our debt at once? Our nation would crumble, no, it is currently in the starting stages.
One way we can prevent the fall of America is to remove some extremities that are not useful to the building/ maintaining of a great nation. We would gain many allies if we were not a threat to them. We can be safe & secure without being a bullying presence overseas.
So, you agree that we will protect defensless, but you are against imperialization.
Question to you - what imperialization? Name me US colonies, where locals forced to labor threaten by US marines and their houses, wifes and children are confiscated by Halliburton.
Do you suspect that all these BMWs are made by Germans children as reparations for the war?
We just need a strategy that allows us to be smarter in our conduct in the world. "Policeman/no Policeman" says NOTHING. "Preemption/no preemption" says NOTHING. In some areas of the globe we may need a more forward presence and preemption/policing. In other areas we may need to step back a tad and deputize some good and decent "Locals" with somehat shared mutual intersts to keep stability and forgo direct preepmtion/policing. It depends on the local/regional circumstances and what we as anation CAN do which is still substantial. We may not be policeman all over the place nor can we - we have neither the will nor the wallet to do such. But we will be major major influencers on what happens on the ground around the world even where we are not policeman.
And preemption should NEVER be precluded - would be the height of folly. But preemption MUST be integrated as a last resort in some areas (are still some real tough neigborhoods out their with some real tough customers)in an integrated cogent sober realistic strategic context with valid diplomatic, economic, and political underpinnings. Preemption (or any policy for that matter) devoid of an overarching strategic context, is folly and dangerous. Bush and the US are learning that the hard way. But in the proper strategic context as circumstances arise (and they will), preemption can and should be employed if all else fails.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I think the world may have gotten to small to require a declaration of war to take foreign military action. By my own definition of war, one party or the other must be utterly defeated. If this is the intent, as in Iraq, then a declaration should be required.
I don't think the president should be allowed to engage forces unilaterally, except in emergency situations. Commander in chief is a military rank. Omnipotence in the rank removes civilian oversight.
Only congress should assume the responsibility for military engagement. If not a declaration of war, at least an order of action, intent, and purpose should be required, not just authorization to engage (like the weak kneed PUBLIC LAW 107–243). The reluctance of congress to do this would be a significant check on foreign military action. Not to mention it is what the Constitution requires.
A Wise and Benign Mentor : America Could Be That Mentor once Americans can better understand their place in the Community of Nations ..
Stop & Think ..
We are the ONLY NATION ON THIS PLANET THAT CONSISTS OF : Every Nationality, Religion, Race, Creed and Color - who've been exposed to, enjoyed and/or been burdened by - every type and form of life experience - men women and children can experience : A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE AVAILABLE NOWHERE ELSE ON THIS PLANET ..
We proved - that without the Interference of Government - left to out own devices : we were able to come together and create the greatest and most successful society the world had ever known ..
THINK ABOUT THAT FOLKS dammit - think about that .. WITHOUT THE INTERFERENCE OF AN INCOMPETENT & CORRUPT GOVERNMENT WE OVERCAME ALL OBSTACLES !! NOW - THE OBSTACLE IS THAT FRIGGING GOVERNMENT - What Are You Going To Do About It .. pussyfoot around looking for diplomatic ways cure a cancer that's killing us more and more each day ..
Not me - I'm going for the jugular with every weapon I can think of BECAUSE - The World Needs America as a Mentor not A Policeman .
Pete(popo)evans
The principle of the mentor is to teach, to enable others to lead. To share the wisdom of experience so that the same mistakes are not repeated. When the current administration acts as "unilateral America", we're not being a mentor. We're not winning allies and forging alliances. That has to change (back).
The world's policeman is an egotistical adventure and one that tends to make enemies. A mentor, partner, or "strong friend" is a much better role to pursue, especially in a world, where the disparity between nations is shrinking, and cooperation is not a luxury, but a necessity.
-GP (gp.in.minnesota@gmail.com)
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://www.unity-usa.org
The World Needs ... A Wise and Benign Mentor.
I seriously doubt it, because mentoring without force never ever worked out to establish peace.
And mentoring with applying force here and there toward "bad" guys worked, but called policing.
If it never ever worked in the past, what is so attractive in that idea, that you are willing to gamble US future and security on it?
To the best of my knowledge and experience it doesn't work all that well through deliberate force. That's bullying, not mentoring.
-GP (gp.in.minnesota@gmail.com)
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://www.unity-usa.org
I'm sorry shieym2007, but your comments make it clear you have not taken the trouble to do your homework before commenting on this topic .. In the hope it will help you , I will quote from a posting on my blog ..
Its Dated January 19th 2024 Titled "OPEN LETTER TO : ALL WORLD LEADERS - PRESENT AND ASPIRING "
QUOTE ..
The most valuable weapons in your arsenal are and will be : you knowledge & acceptance of Human Nature - and its needs and desires as they develop throughout you zona of interest and elsewhere in the Worls ..
There is NO MILITARY WEAPON OR PRODUCT (Such as OIL) - That Provides The Ability To Dominate or Hold The World Hostage !!
Threat of the use of a Nuclear Device - simply assures there could be a preemptive strike, or counter measures will be in place to insure your demise in short order - you will gain nothing - you will lose everything !!
A Threat to withhold Oil or any other product - will simply provide the rest of the world with the incentive to develop better alternatives - You Resource Will Lose It's Value !!
How much greater contribution can you make - to your Nation and The World - than making sure you and your People - present and future , examine and learn from the successes and failures of other great societies - and use that knowledge to the betterment of your own.
pke
This was directed at Assad of Syria, and Ahmadinejad of Iran.
Hope this helps, the point is - we human beings are all predictable - we are controlled by 3 Human emotions - Love (that includes Greed) Hate, and Fear ..of these Fear is the most powerful, do your homework - determine what makes your current enemy tick - then First Eliminate Any Fear he may have of you - and replace it with Respect and work your way up to Love for your concern and help THAT'S HOW YOU WIN HEARTS AND MINDS - the need for Police is eliminated ..
pete(popo)evans
What was it that Sun Tzu said was number 1 and 2 in strategy 1) know your enemy; and 2) know yourself. I'd add a third - know your potential allies that share your interests and realize that interests do change and are in constant flux. And that is what it comes down to - shared intersts and what a nation wants to do and what it can do and synch them up for mutual gain. We need to know our interests and be able to clearly and cogently communicate those to our allies, potential allies, adversaries and potential adversaries.
The key tool is persuading through a panoply of ways and a system of international relationships that asures another nation's interest is in accord with our own. Where they are not, we need to soberly and dispassionately examine why and adjust our persuasion tools according to how it plays into our overall strategy. THAT is the task of that key two-way street called Diplomacy.
These national interest are not fixed and static but do change and is in constant state of constant flux. The task of Diplomacy and a sound Grand Strategy is to nurture the system of international relationships based solidly in mutual national intests in a way that does not impose a legal or military straight jacket on that international system, but rather facilitates the process of change, eases its transitions, tempers the combatants, and isolates and moderates the conflicts in a way where these conflicts do not overwhelm international life in general.
The overuse of the American concept of world law (and the hyper moralism/legalism that it manifests) as well as the overly dependent use of military means BOTH negate a realistic Diplomacy needed to implement a sound and effective Grand Strategy that is truly interest based and synchs our Oughta dos with our Can dos. We had a realistic multi-faceted competent Diplomacy did in the Cold War. We also had such in WWII over a 4 years period. Both times against some real nasty folks who wished us ill no matter how nicey-nice we were. We need now more than ever to gear up to do again for the nasties who wish us ill no matter how nicey-nice we are are still around. But they will not be turned back until do Sun Tzu number 1 and 2 and until we learn and know our allies in this struggle (my number 3).
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com