Team America World Police

[Ron]

At the upper end of middle age and I still have a lot of questions. It's a shame that this late in the game of my life and I can't answer these questions myself. I've been a political junkie my whole life reading from every side of these issues and I don't know. How does the average Joe Sixpack stand a chance to have an informed opinion only consuming the TV news?

Are we obligated to "police" the world and use our military might to "stabilize" regions in conflict? Lately I'm inclined to say no, hell no.

If we were to draw down our military presence in Europe, Asia, the ME and Africa would all hell break loose?  I don't know

We currently rule the waves and have the worldwide footprint of an empire. Is this preferable to a less "managed" world?  I don't know

Would Russia and China go all expansionist on their neighbors if we just took a more laissez-faire approach to other nations dealings with each other? I don't know

I never recall a time in my life when our foreign policy was solely based upon our own national interest and not the supposed best interests of the "free world". Why is it immoral for us to act in the best interest of the USA? I'm inclined to err on the side of Nationalism these days.

[zxcvbob]

I thought this was gonna be a thread about marionette porn.   

A little nationalism would be a good thing.  It can be taken too far, of course, but I think we've gone *way* too far the other way.

[Scout26]

We pretty much withdrew from the world stage after WWI.  The Axis powers discounted us as any kind of threat even though we demonstrated in WWI that Americans have the will to battle and are good to excellent soldiers and marksmen.  

However, in the intervening years the Italians, Japanese and Germans took measure of us and saw a weak country that didn't want to be on the world stage.  Remember the Japanese thought that after wrecking the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor that we would immediately sue for peace and Japan would be able to continue it's goal of the creation of the "Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere".

They under estimated us.

We are currently is the same type of drawdown (with the Active force being reduce to pre-WWII numbers).  Again, all that does is embolden our enemies.  Our current political leaders learned nothing from the Cold War.  

This was said a long, long, long time ago, but it holds true yet today.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[zxcvbob]

We are currently is the same type of drawdown (with the Active force being reduce to pre-WWII numbers).  Again, all that does is embolden our enemies.  Our current political leaders learned nothing from the Cold War. 

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Or perhaps they did, and they are deliberately conspiring against us. 

[longeyes]

Read Diana West's American Betrayal.  Might offer a new and disturbing slant on things.

[Fly320s]

There is a difference in preparing for war and being perpetually at war.

[RoadKingLarry]

If you look at the world like an unsupervised grade school playground it's easier to understand.
Most kids countries just want to go about there own business and enjoy life.
There is always a few kids countries that have to be the bully and screw things up for everybody.
Either for personal gain or just sadistic pleasure they will find the weakest points and attack one way or another.
Sometimes a strong kid country will stand up to the trouble makers and shut them down, some times they band together with others to do so.
Sometimes the bullies win.

Does the US have to be the playground monitor? Probably not, but we damn sure need to not be the weakest point.

[HankB]

There is a difference in preparing for war and being perpetually at war.

Especially when you're not actually trying to win the war.

[French G.]

Someone has to be in charge. And we are pretty lousy empire builders and/or reasonably benevolent bullies, so why not. At the very least maintain maritime dominance and have conventional forces capable of projecting. The cost of staying ready is less than that of being a few years late to the party.

[AJ Dual]

Someone has to be in charge. And we are pretty lousy empire builders and/or reasonably benevolent bullies, so why not. At the very least maintain maritime dominance and have conventional forces capable of projecting. The cost of staying ready is less than that of being a few years late to the party.

Doesn't matter though. Even if we aren't the bullies, or are more benevolent than any other world power in history, court martialing our soldiers for abuses that are arguably mild compared to the way these people treat their own countrymen on a day to day basis etc. if you are the biggest power, you get viewed as a big imperialistic bully anyway.

My biggest problem is that post WWII there was a definite need to fill a vacuum, oppose the Soviet Union etc. but since say... the late 80's onward, we've been essentially subsidizing the likes of Germany and Japan allowing them to engage in levels of social spending or subsidizing their internal economies and exports etc. which in turn is at our expense twice. First for the defense spending, and then again in the economic disadvantage.

And then collectively, the Leftists in Europe, and our own domestic Leftists point to the more Socialist aspects of Europe subsidized by our defense spending to undermine American individualism and economic liberty at home. 

[seeker_two]

We need to get out of the "boots on the ground" strategy and into the "death from afar" strategy. Nothing says, "We can stop you, and you can't touch us" like a God Rod or two.....

[Scout26]

We need to get out of the "boots on the ground" strategy and into the "death from afar" strategy. Nothing says, "We can stop you, and you can't touch us" like a God Rod or two.....

We disproved that in Korea and Kosovo (and numerous other places).  See T.R. Fahrenbach's  This Kind of War.

At Ft. Dix there is an "Iron Mike" Statue.  This is what is engraved on the base:





But simply the threat of us using force should be enough to make any global schoolyard bully back down.  We shouldn't have to send our troops in to clean up every mess in the world, only when necessary to protect our vital interests or ourselves.

[Ben]

But simply the threat of us using force should be enough to make any global schoolyard bully back down.  We shouldn't have to send our troops in to clean up every mess in the world, only when necessary to protect our vital interests or ourselves.

And if we do go in, maybe think about the von Clausewitz model for war, vs asking our enemies to dance. It's hard to get people and politicians to look past the "brutality" of the von Clausewitz method though. People think 25,000 deaths over a few days is brutal, but 100,000 deaths over a few years is just dandy. That's not even counting long term infrastructure destruction a piece at a time.

If we really think there is an evil enemy to fight, then make them beg for terms of surrender right out the gate, and save lives on both sides. These police actions are a death by a thousand cuts, plus they make us look weak and ineffectual. Pick our battles, make them few, and get them over with.

[AJ Dual]

We need to get out of the "boots on the ground" strategy and into the "death from afar" strategy. Nothing says, "We can stop you, and you can't touch us" like a God Rod or two.....

It's not the "boots on the ground", as pointed out, that's a tactical necessity. Sometimes even more so when it's asymmetric warfare, and all we can use a million dollar bomb on is mud huts and the occasional Toyota Hilux.

It's the "nation building" and decades + of occupation that kills us financially. And the WWII/Korean models don't really apply, because those were enemies that despite their genocidal acts, valued peace and order and the "status quo" even if it was one we imposed on them. That model does not work on countries and cultures that thrive on chaos, and often don't have any real unity that allows us to manage them as a monolithic nation state.

We could do "Shock and Awe" and drive across Iraq in 6 days several times over for what the occupation cost us.  And we'd probably do a better job depopulating the region of fighting-age males and war materials in successive sweeps like that too.

[Balog]

I'd be all in favor of American imperialism if we were actually an empire. Colonize the Middle East and ram Western Civ down their throats whether they like it or not, funded by the oil which we now own by right of conquest. And if the Europussies don't like it they can lose their foreign aid and our .mil protection that keeps the Russians from annexing them.

But since America is a weak, spineless nation of pajama boys we don't have the national will to do that.

[MechAg94]

I'd be all in favor of American imperialism if we were actually an empire. Colonize the Middle East and ram Western Civ down their throats whether they like it or not, funded by the oil which we now own by right of conquest. And if the Europussies don't like it they can lose their foreign aid and our .mil protection that keeps the Russians from annexing them.

But since America is a weak, spineless nation of pajama boys we don't have the national will to do that.

The only way to colonize the Middle East is to either be really oppressive to the point they fear/respect us or kill everyone already there.  We aren't prepared to do either so don't try.  The Russians likely tried the first in Afghanistan and it didn't work either. 

[Balog]

The only way to colonize the Middle East is to either be really oppressive to the point they fear/respect us or kill everyone already there.  We aren't prepared to do either so don't try.  The Russians likely tried the first in Afghanistan and it didn't work either. 

You just need to have both the carrot and the stick, which the Russians forgot. You make their lives better (have some free food and medical care and reliable power/water/sewer services) as well as mercilessly crushing any opposition. If all you're doing is slaughtering innocents and making the locals lives worse of course they'll reject you.