Posted on 09/21/2016 7:32:22 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
oh maaaaaannnn.... this is a heavy just like the on-going PP & the abortion clinics.
You could argue the topic of this thread ‘til eternity.
An Empire by any other name will still fall. They all do.
One has only to think about what happened in the Iraq region when the U. S. pulled out prematurely.
Think global. That is what the world is without a very strong presence from the U. S.
This led to Russia filling the void. It led to ISIS. It led to destabilization of the whole region.
The point is not to engage everywhere. The point is to be capable of it, and let folks know we won’t put up with nonsense.
This world is already in trouble because of signaled U. S. contraction.
China is now adventurous. Russia is adventurous.
Israel is under new pressure. The region around it is on fire.
Folks, if it isn’t us formulating global policy, it will be others. Russia? China? Is this registering?
Washington/Bush Debate. (Note, how totally, even across the Centuries, Washington's points resonate as true.)
The vast amounts in blood and treasure wasted abroad in contrast to the derelict physical infrastructure here and lost social investment brings up the issues again and again.
You should distinguish between organizing a balance of power—what worked for Britain for generations—and what never worked for Britain, i.e. meddling with other people’s cultural heritages.
In Washington’s day it took months to travel to places around the world.
Today it take mere hours.
As this reduction in time to get from one place to anther took place, the ability of those other places to impact us negatively increased.
Sure, in Washington’s day it wasn’t necessary to be involved globally. Today it is.
If Russia takes over Europe, that reduces Western influence globally. If China expands it’s control of South West Asia, it reduces Western influence globally.
If those expansions are allowed, the next steps will be South and Central America.
At what point do we wake up and realize that we have backed ourselves into a corner, where we have to retake major portions of the planet or die?
Washington was right in his day.
He would not be right with that outlook today.
The world is too damned small, and every bad thing is happening on our block now. The ramifications are immediate, and serious.
No, we should not police the world.
There are very few nations in the world worth the blood and treasure we’ve spent trying to help them.
Instead, we should try some ju-jitus - and get the Russians and Chinese to over-extend ‘policing’ the world. Let THEM bankrupt themselves trying to keep ‘order.’
But we should kick the ass of anyone who crosses us and keep the means for doing so handy.
The global polices need to reflect one thing. Period.
Will our ideology prevail, or will theirs?
You learned absolutely nothing from the U. S. withdrawing from Iraq too early. NOTHING!
Your take on it is that Iraq was a terrible mistake. Justify that!
Is Iraq a more stable reasoned place now or not? It isn’t threatening it’s neighbors. It isn’t killing it’s own citizens. The Kurds are relatively autonomous. Israel would be more safe too, it Owhackjob hadn’t pulled us out too prematurely, armed and financed the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, and sadly ISIS.
As for trade with China, it is a separate issue. I’ve been railing on it since 1995. When I first did it, crickets. Today the results are in and folks have woken up to what I warned would be happening.
No, we shouldn’t have traded with China, not one cents worth.
We gutted our economy, financed a powerhouse enemy, and transferred our entire patent database to it. Everything being made in China, must first be reviewed by the Chinese. That means we reveal our patent information each step of the way.
The cost wasn’t our adventurism. The cost was gutting our economy. We should be bringing in two to three trillion more in taxation to the fed, if we had those 90 million out of work Americans working the in jobs we sent overseas.
Our national debt wouldn’t be nearly this high. Our Medicare and Social Security wouldn’t be under the negative pressure they are under today. We would have been able to finance the upgrades on our infrastructure.
We have done everything we could to undermine our economy. We bring in Mexican labor. We transfer all our jobs to China, India, and elsewhere. And since that isn’t enough, we replace our own workers with H1-B visa holders.
Our intervention in the Middle East was not the problem.
Our problem was destroying our own nation from within.
Our problem was voting in an enemy of the state, a Muslim Brotherhood fellow traveler.
The vast improvement in travel time, that you cite is certainly a reason to continually upgrade our military equipment, etc.. It is not reason to try to Police other people's internal affairs.
The Washington/Jefferson foreign policy was never the least bit isolationist. It was simply one where we dealt fairly and respectfully with all peoples. If we did not get respect back? Well read the accounts of the Marine seizure and slaughter of the men on board a Barbary Cruiser, that meddled with our rights on the High Seas.
Modernize the hell out of our military. Work with other major powers to common purpose, where it is in our interest. Do not try to force our culture on anyone. If they like our example, well, Bless their hearts. But their heritage is theirs; ours is ours. Mutual respect works miracles; bullying only builds enduring resentment. Or go in any Irish Pub or a Pub in the Scottish Highlands; and inquire as to how their forebears enjoyed being Anglicized.
That’s exactly what I did. What do you think I was addressing when I stated what I did? Did I advocate for intervening everywhere, or did I state we should make it clear we could?
China is watching us withdraw from the global stage. That fits it’s goals perfectly, because it wants to be the world’s next global hegemonic force.
We are telegraphing an acceptance of that determination by China. That’s flat out suicide.
As for Iraq, the region it threatened, and Israel’s safety, things would have been just fine if Obama hadn’t up and pulled everyone out, then armed and financed terrorist groups.
There was a flash point. We put the fire out.
Obama lit the fuse again. By rights, the Muslim Brotherhood efforts should never have succeeded. It died down as quickly as it started. Excepting for Obama, the Middle East would be a fairly quiet place today.
We arent policing the world and tyrants are everywhere. Next bright idea?
That's on you. It was all a mistake. SH was a 'stabilizer' compared to the problems of today. He kept Iran in check, etc.
The ME will always have problems, and nation building there is only a dream; a nightmare.
It had nothing to do with taking troops out early, we could have left them there for 100 years and that wouldn't fix anything.
They are Islamic and that is the problem. That will always be the problem.
And that isn't even talking about the wasted blood and treasure. Nothing in return.
“Policing the world” is no such thing. Our political betters now make a disaster of everything being done.
US involvement overseas now seems only to be to push the advantage of, insiders crony-capitalists, corrupt politicians, and their extreme ideologies. Our government is too corrupt, and our nations politics now far too divided to spend the massive sums, and the lives of young Americans, on wars overseas.
In Syria, for example, only ones who seem to be benefitting from our proxy-war to overthrow Assad are the Saudis. Who benefitted from Obama/Clinton’s assassination of Khaddafy?
Indeed, one could make a serious claim that what Obama/Clinton have wrought in North Africa & Syria, should be treated as war crimes. (And then there is the gun running to Mexican gangs, when they first came on the scene.)
Who is doing more long-term damage to Europe, its culture, economy and "influence?" Is it Putin, or Merkel? Who is more aggressively statist? Russia, or the EU?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
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.
You didn’t know that?
Let’s start there...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.