Policing comes in many forms. Here is a police officer who brought enough groceries for a mother's entire family RATHER THAN ARREST HER when she stole 5 eggs to feed her children.
"Policing the world" requires soldiers. The MILITARY. America does not have a police force that can act like the MILITARY, nor does America have a MILITARY that can act like a police force.
It is simple folks, and not really a debate. Go ahead, pretend it is debatable to your detriment.
Yet fools continue the debate.
US international policy? When did the US becomes friends with all the little countries surrounding Russia? Never.
"The U.S. Must Not Be The World's Policeman"
Decades of interventionist foreign policy have eroded our freedom without making the world a safer place.
Sheldon Richman | September 8, 2013
http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/08/the-us-must-not-be-the-worlds-policeman
"Similarly, the U.S. government for decades provided advanced weaponry to brutal and corrupt monarchies in the Arab world and autocrats in Asia and Latin America. More often than not, when a government represses its population, it uses equipment made in the USA.
America's selective outrage is not lost on the world. The U.S. government is neither an honest broker nor an avenger of the victims of injustice. It is the world's ham-handed hegemon, with overriding geopolitical and economic interests that determine what it does in any circumstance."
MORE FROM THIS ARTICLE BELOW.
"What would happen if the USA stopped trying to "police the world"?
The USA is often seen and quoted as being the world's police force. The United States currently spends more on its military than the next top 14 spenders combined. What would happen if the USA took a more reserved role like many other countries instead of a proactive role? No unilateral military action, etc, and with military spending in line with similar size/wealth nations.
This scenario would still include multinational UN peacekeeping activities but the USA would not commit more troops or gear than any other single country. Lets also assume it was not an instant change. (unless you prefer.)
What effects would this have on the USA and other countries? What effect would it have economically and militarily?"
One opinion, by Dan Holliday, 12 July 2013, is that things get worse, contrary to William Blume's opinion and assessment. I disagree with Holliday because nothing says if the US stops policing every hot spot that we would stand by while Dan's scenarios for disaster unfold. Nothing says we do not still have the most powerful military on earth. Dan, to put I simply, is simply wrong.
"Things are never so simple. The USA isn't "trying" to police the world against the will of the world, contrary to what you may have heard. All of the western world, including most of the advanced nations of Asia/Pacifica and the Mideast depend on US-American "Policery". Wishing away one hegemony only creates a vacuum for another to enter."
"What would happen if the USA were to suddenly go away? [Suddenly? First error by Dan. No need to "suddenly" go away.]
Well, for starters, Russia and China would immediately fill in and assume complete dominance over their regions of the world.
[Really, Dan. It costs these bad actors as much as it costs us to try to police the world, or, as you suppose, take it over. Dan, you have too much testosterone., and imaginations.]
Russia would effectively re-absorb its former empire and would make things very difficult for Turkey and Eastern Europe especially Germany, Poland and Finland.
China would exert its control over Southeast Asia and East Asia. Our friends Korea, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia and Australia would immediately feel very uncomfortable in their given situations.
Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Israel would immediately go to war. And before blaming that situation on the USA, cool your jets. Everybody on earth depends on stability in the region. The USA has pressured Israel to remain outside of two Iraqi wars, and to end its hostilities in its most recent war with its neighbors. Saudi Arabia and Iran absolutely hate each other and without the USA there to stop them, there's zero doubt that a hot war would brew very quickly.
The seas are currently patrolled by the USA + UK/Australia. Without this powerful maritime front, most of the treaties and enforcement on earth would fall apart.
The trope that "the USA starts civil wars // without the USA civil wars would stop" is utter bunk and not supported by facts. Powerful nations meddle in the affairs of less powerful nations. Civil wars will continue happening, even without the USA. While the USA has a very sad record -- one I'm ashamed of -- the USA's absolute dominance has overseen the last 25 years of general progression towards increasing freedom around the world.
In Syria, the USA is being simultaneously pressured to interfere and to stay out. The "stay out crowd" consists of Russia and Iran who are already fighting a proxy war there.The "get in crowd" consists of Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and a good portion of Europe. Syria's civil war wasn't started by the USA, but guess how quickly it ends the moment the USA throws itself into the ring (fully)?
[Dan is wrong about ending the war in Syria because there was no easy way to "step in," as Dan suggests, in a civil war without again committing wart crimes. Yes, I said "again" committing war crimes as we did in Iraq.]
In 30 years, when China matches the USA in supremacy, I wonder if all the voices denouncing American hegemony will have a different pitch when Chinese autocrats effectively dictate policy in their region and destabilize regions around the world to their benefit. History has shown that when there are multiple hegemonies, things usually get ugly."
[Dan has only military knowledge as it seems, aNO, that is wrong. He obviously has NO military knowledge or he would know we cannot extend our military as far as he thinks. He absolutely lacks economic and sociological training of any sort. Economics keeps the world happy, not war. And happy economics comes when we are sociologically at peace, not at war. People find ways to avoid war when the can make "deals" as Tweety Twump likes, but only win-win deals.]
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-the-USA-stopped-trying-to-police-the-world
"Should America Be the World's Policeman?
The Edited Broadcast of the Debate, February 20, 20083:40 PM ET
Commentary from "npr" [National Public Radio"
Eric Weiner
http://www.npr.org/2008/02/20/19180589/should-america-be-the-worlds-policeman
You will have to read the comments, but overall I'd say the speakers feel it is NOT useful or within our means to police the world.
"4 Reasons Why America Shouldn't Be the World Police"
Intercollegiate Review Walter A. McDougall Winter 2015
See more at: https://home.isi.org/4-reasons-why-america-shouldnt-be-world-police#sthash.j5s4LPKr.dpuf
https://home.isi.org/4-reasons-why-america-shouldnt-be-world-police
"1: Doctrine of Separate Spheres
The first was relative weakness. The United States might be a potential hegemon in the New World but remained a minor player in the world at large. So American statesmen proclaimed the doctrine of separate spheres and were pleased that it seemed to stick.
2: Westward Expansion
The second was westward expansion. No one in his right mind wanted to risk the nation’s Manifest Destiny in North America by picking ideological quarrels overseas.
3: Wisdom of History
The third was the wisdom of history. American statesmen in the nineteenth centuryâ€unlike today’s ignoramuses—knew the lessons of Athens and Rome and lived in healthy fear of an American Alcibiades, Caesar, or Cromwell.
4: Incorrigible Imperfection of Human Nature
The fourth was the residual Christian anthropology embedded in U.S. institutions. Almost all the Framers had believed, if not in original sin or Calvin’s total depravity, then in their philosophical equivalent, the incorrigible imperfection of human nature. That is why Federalists were anxious to check and balance powers, while Anti-Federalists feared any general government at all. Indeed, a major check on hubris and adventurism was the Constitution itself."
"Yes, America Should Be the World’s Policeman"
Bush did too much and Obama too little—but a ‘broken-windows’ model of U.S. foreign policy can be just right
http://www.wsj.com/articles/yes-america-should-be-the-worlds-policeman-1415984889
Here is another idea for how we can act as the world police, which I think is flawed. It is not economically feasible for the US to spend as much as we do on weapons and then project ti everywhere. It is patently DUMB. We are not able to police the world for many reasons, so countries need to be able to police each other.
But here it is, saying we need to have more presence everywhere. lol Really?
"The most urgent goal of U.S. foreign policy over the next decade should be to arrest the continued slide into a broken-windows world of international disorder. The broken-windows theory emphasizes the need to put cops on the street—creating a sense of presence, enforcing community norms, serving the interests of responsible local stakeholders. It stresses the need to deter crime, not react to it, to keep neighborhoods from becoming places that entice criminal behavior.
A broken-windows approach to foreign policy would require the U.S. to increase military spending to upward of 5% of GDP. That is well above the 3.5% of GDP devoted to defense in 2014, though still under its 45-year average of 5.5%. The larger budget would allow the Navy to build a fleet that met its long-stated need for 313 ships (it is now below 290, half its Reagan-era size). It would enable the Air Force to replace an aircraft fleet whose planes are 26 years old on average, the oldest in its history. It would keep the U.S. Army from returning—as it now plans to do, over the warnings of officers like Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno—to its pre-World War II size.
The key to building a military ready to enforce a broken-windows policy is to focus on numbers, not on prohibitively expensive wonder-weapons into which we pour billions of research dollars—only to discover later that we can afford just a small number of them.
Broken-windows foreign policy would sharply punish violations of geopolitical norms, such as the use of chemical weapons, by swiftly and precisely targeting the perpetrators of the attacks (assuming those perpetrators can be found). But the emphasis would be on short, mission-specific, punitive police actions, not on open-ended occupations with the goal of redeeming broken societies."
"The U.S. Must Not Be The World's Policeman"
Decades of interventionist foreign policy have eroded our freedom without making the world a safer place.
Sheldon Richman | September 8, 2013
http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/08/the-us-must-not-be-the-worlds-policeman
"As it interferes in other people’s conflicts, a self-appointed world policemen will breed resentment and a lust for revenge. No one likes a bully, especially when it’s a presumptuous superpower armed with nuclear warheads and monstrous conventional weapons. (By the way, Assad's conventional weapons have killed far more people than sarin gas has.)"
ISIS was born out of hate of modernizing Muslims and the western influence. Being the police of people who hate your culture and your religious beliefes cannot work.
"It's not just that no one appointed the United States the world's policeman. By assuming that role, the U.S. government—no matter who's president—undermines the values we claim to uphold, such as freedom, justice, privacy, and peace. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan left hundreds of thousands dead, many more gravely wounded, and corrupt authoritarian governments in control of the social wreckage. The law of unintended consequences cannot be repealed, and the risk is no less with interventions that begin modestly, because no one can say what the other side—which includes Iran and Russia—will do.
At home, a perpetual war footing drains our pockets, puts us at risk of retaliation, violates our privacy, and distorts our economy through the military-industrial complex.
James Madison understood well: "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/08/the-us-must-not-be-the-worlds-policeman
"My Turn: The United States can't be the world's police force"
By: Gary McNair, General Manager
http://www.wect.com/story/23392684/my-turn-the-united-states-cant-be-the-worlds-police-force
Be aware Beware
