Why the U.S. Can’t and Shouldn’t Try to ‘Police’ the World

The American Conservative ^ | 09-21-2016 | Daniel Larison

[NRx]

Anders Fogh Rasmussen essentially wants the U.S. to govern the planet:

In this world of interconnections, it has become a cliché to talk about the “global village.“ But right now, the village is burning, and the neighbors are fighting in the light of the flames. Just as we need a policeman to restore order; we need a firefighter to put out the flames of conflict, and a kind of mayor, smart and sensible, to lead the rebuilding.

Only America can play all these roles, because of all world powers, America alone has the credibility to shape sustainable solutions to these challenges.

Rasmussen’s op-ed makes many familiar mistakes here. For one thing, the entire “village” isn’t burning, and the vast majority of the world is at peace. The need for both “policeman” and “firefighter” is exaggerated to make it seem as if the world will fall into chaos unless the U.S. acts as the author wants, but that isn’t the case. For another, it can’t possibly be the responsibility of any one government to do all of the things mentioned here. No government has the right or authority to do these things, and there is no single government with either the resources or the competence to police the world. Besides, there simply isn’t enough political support for such a role here in the U.S. Even if the U.S. could competently fill the role Rasmussen describes, it would be a mistake to do it.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree.

His arming and funding of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda were instrumental in the sprouting of ISIS.

He has operated as if he were a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, even going so far as to have their representative meet with him for policy discussions in the White House. He called them his advisors.

I’m not a big Bush fan, but comparing his actions with Obama’s are truly unfair to Bush. Bush considered the Middle East terrorists to be nothing but that, terrorists.

Obama thinks of them as he would think of any ally. He rejects Britian and Israel as our allies, and chums it up with world class destroyers.

[DoughtyOne]

I wouldn’t argue against the point you raise with regard to Merkel.

Merkel IMO, is worthy of being charged with crimes against her own nation.

That’s not to say that Russia is right in it’s actions either though. His long range bomber activities alone have been far beyond confrontational. He’s darn lucky nobody has shot some of them down by now.

[Ohioan]

Of course, I am not suggesting that the Iraqi dictator respected us. In fact, as I recall, he put out a contract on "W"'s father in the 1990s, which I have always thought might have influenced the decision to attack Iraq, later.

As for the domestic psychology aspect? It is in Washington's discussion of the bad side effects of Americans taking sides in respect to favored and dis-favored foreign nations. I do not have the material before me, or I could refer to the specific paragraphs of the discussion.

As to those "purple fingers?" Surely you can see that celebrating that election as some sort of American triumph was ridiculous. According to the reports at the time, most of the voters went to the polls with instructions from their favored Mullahs, as to whom to vote. The dyed fingers struck me almost as a mockery of the values of the American Revolution, which certainly did not celebrate universal suffrage, among anyone qualified merely by existence. (It was 50 years before the major vote expansion here. That concept was never offered as the defining aspect of "Liberty." And the chaos in Iraq since that "free election," is hardly an exhibition of American style Liberty.)

[Ohioan]

Obama clearly is--and has been all his adult life--at war with our culture, heritage & history. My comparison with Bush went only to them both being into meddling with others' internal affairs. On that Bush invaded a country governed by an American hating Iraqi Socialist. That intervention was certainly not on a level of mischief equivalent to Obama's embrace of the overthrow of pro-American Egyptian Government, by the supporters of an anti-American political brotherhood.

That distinction is real & valid. Fortunately the Egyptian Army intervened to frustrate the pro-Obama fanatics that threatened our interests, as well as those of more "sober" Egyptians.

[Theoria]

'Iraq is not threatening it’s neighbors now. It’s people are not being slaughtered by their king and his sons. The Kurds are autonomous and not being threatened with destruction by Iraq’s king.'

Your making my point to have a devil like SH in power that we have dealt with before.

[firebrand]

Washington’s often-quoted remark had to do with trade and commerce—to avoid entanglements that would prohibit moneymaking business endeavors. That was a concern then, more than it is now. He did not want the new nation to become isolated. The oceans were bigger then.

[DoughtyOne]

Of course, I am not suggesting that the Iraqi dictator respected us. In fact, as I recall, he put out a contract on "W"'s father in the 1990s, which I have always thought might have influenced the decision to attack Iraq, later.

It may have been a contriubuting factor.  I never seem to quite understand the objecion to our actions in Iraq.  Do you realize that if we followed your and other people's stated policies to the full extent, we would have driven Hitler back beyond his nation's borders and walked away.  There he would have been free to subjugate and kill his own people, and exterminate Jews at will.  He could have reorganized his army and ordered them to amas on the borders of his neighbors.  So do you really mean what you say here, or are you willing to accept there are exceptions to every decent policy?

As for the domestic psychology aspect? It is in Washington's discussion of the bad side effects of Americans taking sides in respect to favored and dis-favored foreign nations. I do not have the material before me, or I could refer to the specific paragraphs of the discussion.

Did we take action in Venezuela?  Do we really take action in nations we don't agree with as a rule?  No.  There are plenty of nations we disagree with.  We don't invade them.  There has to be something more going on.

In Iraq there was something more going on.  On top of everthing else, Hussien was providing a reward to suicide bombers in Isreal at $25,000 per family. He was also urging terrorists around the world to attack Western interests.  He was mouthing off as if he was financing global terrorism.  He would start these hours long diatribes and say all manner of things that incriminated himself, true or not.

As to those "purple fingers?" Surely you can see that celebrating that election as some sort of American triumph was ridiculous.

Oh cut it out.  They did just what you and I do.  They talked to others, determined who they wanted to vote for, and followed through.  Please don't recite this nonsense that was lofted by our Leftist media.

According to the reports at the time, most of the voters went to the polls with instructions from their favored Mullahs, as to whom to vote.

They voted by secret ballot.  You tell me who could know this.  What if our voters voted as their pastor recommended?  Is that a violation of their rights, the "American" concept?  No.  If it makes sense, you do it.  If it doesn't, you politely nod your head in agreement, and vote as you please.  Even if they did vote as the Mullah instructed, that is still an exercise of free will.  Why is it important to you to denegrate the process?  This is right out of Leftist journalism 101.  "If you lose, still characterize it as your victory."

We won.  The Iraqi people won.

The dyed fingers struck me almost as a mockery of the values of the American Revolution, which certainly did not celebrate universal suffrage, among anyone qualified merely by existence. (It was 50 years before the major vote expansion here. That concept was never offered as the defining aspect of "Liberty."

Our Founding policies were determined by societal norms of the day.  Iraq's new founding was determined by the societal norms of the 21st Century.  There's nothing necessarily evil about that.  The U. S. insistance of women in the process was meant to help woman gain more respect, to elevate their station in life.  It wasn't designed to let them take over or dominate.  In a nation where some still believed in clitorectomies, stoning for being raped, single digit age brides, and executions for not wearing the proper clothing, it was noble to try and set up a situation where women could help determine their fates/futures.  It wasn't some evil devil's plot.

And the chaos in Iraq since that "free election," is hardly an exhibition of American style Liberty.)

If we're being honest with ourselves, the nation of Iraq was very stable prior to ISIS.  To it's credit the nation of Iraq has pushed back the agents of ISIS.  It has freed territory and returned those territories to peace and order.

It's not reasoned to trash Iraq as a bad place, based on the reality of an invasion it did not do anything to spark.

Please give any evidence you can think of where Iraq has slid back to the Saddam Hussein model.  I don't think you can.

While Iraqi norms are never going to be the same as the U. S., on the religious level, I think it is reasoned to state that in many ways it does model the U. S.

1. It's people are free
2. The nation is peaceful where it hasn't been attacked and captured.
3. The government functions reasonably well.
4. It's people do not live in fear of being killed by it's leaders.
5. The Kurds have relative autonomy, an agreement Iraq has stood by.
6. It's neighbors are not under the gun.

This isn't a better condition than before?  Sure it is.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with those comments, with the exception of the lightly touched on actions of Bush. I believe I have addressed them adequately in other responses here, so I’ll leave it at that.

Obama clearly operated against U. S. interests, openly, blatantly, and I would state it reached the level of treason.

I honestly believe there is a better than 75/25 chance Obama considers himself a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[DoughtyOne]

That last sentence could use some restructuring.

Not trying to be insulting, but I’m not sure what your objective was with it.

Explain how I made your point, and what Saddam Hussein in power meant.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for that mention. It is something that hadn’t occurred to me, and it’s probable that it should have.

[Theoria]

Better to have SH in power, or what we have now?

[DoughtyOne]

I believe what we have now is much superior.

You’re never going to have absolute perfection, but Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, Iraq’s citizens, and Israel are breathing a sigh of relief now that he is gone.

ISIS was a problem caused by the immaculate Muslim.

So is Iran.

If Obama had refused to let Iran of the bomb, and had not given it trillions of dollars, we wouldn’t be where we are now. And we have to place that blame on him, not George Bush.

I detest George Bush, but the Iraq he handed off was a good solid place.

It was peaceful, and even now is returning to that peace driving ISIS out.

[Theoria]

'It was peaceful, and even now is returning to that peace driving ISIS out.'

No, it is the war of the flea in that case. The great part with SH is that he had borders. There can be no peace without borders. Iraq, syria, libya...Europe...Southern Border..etc..

Anyway, we will never see eye to eye on this one.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you Theoria.

Take care...