America- World's High Sheriff??

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Jun 25, 2004
4,275
285
48
USS Abraham Lincoln
Merlin1047 kicked off what I think can be a great debate in my thread about Tom DeLay and Kosovo. I hope he doesn't mind, but I posted his response to my thread about DeLay in this new thread because it branches off into a debate over America being the world's high sheriff or not (or something close to that description), with nothing to do about politics which is where the Kosovo/Tom DeLay thread is...

Merlin1047 said:
DeLay's ethics, or lack thereof, notwithstanding, I have to say that I believe you're well off the mark with your conclusion regarding our interference in the Balkans. I get the impression from your posts that you think that the USA is the High Sheriff of the World and that we should go charging in wherever and whenever some atrocity is being committed. Personally, I don't agree even a little bit
.

As the world's leader, the world's most powerful nation, the nation with the most at stake in the stability of the international order we (more than anyone else) created and have maintained for decades.... you're damn right we're the high sherriff of the world. Forgive us if that UN thing WE concieved of didn't work out the way we hoped it would (its a total failure), and now we're stuck as the only thing keeping a great deal of the world from falling apart into war and mayhem. We operate on a mixture of fear and respect in this world. Khadafi in Libya bowed to our agenda (to an extent) based on his fear that what happened in Iraq could happen to him. Albania, Japan, Australia, Britain, Poland, Singapore, India... nations such as these work with us and support us because of respect (of US power and intentions) and in some cases, gratitude.


Merlin1047 said:
The US should step in when events threaten our national security interests. We should NOT interfere simply because there is a conflict in some backwater of the world. We should not go running off to some pesthole simply because faction A is murdering faction B. Kosovo was such a situation. Milosovich's actions, while reprehensible, did nothing to threaten our safety or our security. If France, Spain, Germany et al weren't sufficiently concerned to get involved with something going on in their own back yard, why the hell do you think that American lives should be lost in a cause which has no bearing on us? And please let's not go down the path "because it's the moral and ethical thing to do". Maybe it is, but how many American lives is such a cause worth. In my opinion - zero. Besides, Slick Willie didn't get us into that scrap because if was the morally upright thing to do. He got us into that to distract from the aaah - "domestic" problems he was having at the time.

When Faction A murders Faction B, there are usually very serious considerations America must take into account. Whether it was territorial aggression (iraq invading Kuwait), one ethnic group trying to wipe out another (Rwanda), vicious oppression (Pakistan in East Pakistan/Bangladesh, Sudan in Darfur/the South, Taliban in Afghanistan), the cold and calculated sewing of chaos and destruction (by dicators like Milosevic and Laurent Kabilla), pure greed (Charles Taylor in Liberia/Sierra Leone) to take greater power and resources (the Congo, the Balkans).... all of these are threats to international stability, the world economy and in the post 9/11 world, greatly increase the probablity of a failed state or lawless region to exist where terrorists and their supporters can hide (already existing in the border lands of Pakistan, the entire nation of Sudan, Somalia, the tri-border area in South America, most of Burma outside the capital, parts of the Phillipines, Thailand and Indonesia).

Now as for the Balkans, we were letting a Fascist dictator with a considerable military force (and a serious, calculating plan) run around murdering all who got in his way. Giving him free rein violated two of our main tenets (learning from the past and preventing disputes between allies from potentially turning violent). A- Milosevic was acting much like Hitler, albeit with possibly an even more detailed and layered plan. He spent years cultivating his rise to power, several more years laying the groundwork for a new "Serb" nationalism, and then a year or three for him to sow the seeds of war in the Balkans between as many parties as he could get involved, provided they did not have more power or force than he did. B- Greece and Turkey especially were dangerously close to intervening in the situation, which would have had two NATO powers on opposite sides of a violent conflict with the potential for it to grow even more widespread.

Everyone from Bob Dole to Margaret Thatcher sounded the alarms about the Serbs, but no one wanted to listen. Thatcher was telling us from day one (her native Britain and America) to not let the Europeans screw it up, to hit the Serbs hard and fast and not let them get away with their aggression (and later, their mass murder). There were anti-terrorism analysts having bloody fits because as the world's incompetence (especially Europe's) and America's inaction led to even greater slaughter of Bosnian Muslims, Iran and other ME terrorist regimes were sending their Islamic fighters (the mujihedin) to go fight in Bosnia, exporting a violent, fundamentalist brand of Islam directly into Europe. Years later, Kosovo was kicked off primarily because Milosevic was able to save face (and power) in Bosnia at the peace table because we negotiated with the bastard instead of wiping him and his allies out.

In the end, it is less about "morally right" action (though this is important in America, based on the Christian religion, freedom and justice), and more about strategic and security interests. Our security is affected by events all over the world, and if we do not adequately respond to them with effective means (running the gamut from diplomacy to military force to covert action) we suffer considerable consequences.

As far as Slick Willy goes, I truly believe that while his domestic crimes and scandals had bearing on his actions in Kosovo, at the same time someone finally got into his head (probably Wesley Clark and others) that Milosevic was doing it again, that the US was going to have egg on its face, that Iran, Saudi Arabia and others would have a fundamentalist foothold in Albania and/or Kosovo, that Europe would screw it up, etc etc. The US simply could not afford not to act. Even a creep like Clinton can get the analysis right once in a blue moon, though in his case, he just didn't execute very well (but that was also the fault of the Republicans in Congress).

Merlin1047 said:
So if folks in the middle east, or in Africa, or the Balkans, or the Basque region of Spain, or Kurdish separatists in Iraq, want to fight it out with their neighbors - fine. Let them go at it. Who are we to interfere with their determination to murder one another? The cold, hard fact is this - No matter how hard we may try, no matter how many American lives we may sacrifice, we will NEVER prevent the mayhem caused by tribalism in the world. We will NEVER prevent people killing each other who are determined to find a way to do exactly that.

As Victor Davis Hanson correctly analyzed on NRO last month,

Every time the United States the last quarter century had acted boldly — its removal of Noriega and aid for the Contras, instantaneous support for a reunified Germany, extension of NATO, preference for Yeltsin instead of Gorbachev, Gulf War I, bombing of Milosevic, support for Sharon's fence, withdrawal from Gaza and decapitation of the Hamas killer elite, taking out the Taliban and Saddam-good things have ensued. In contrast, on every occasion that we have temporized — abject withdrawal from Lebanon, appeasement of Arafat at Oslo, a decade of inaction in the Balkans, paralysis in Rwanda, sloth in the face of terrorist attacks, not going to Baghdad in 1991 — corpses pile up and the United States became either less secure or less respected or both.

We cannot counsel caution and temperence in the face of genocide, ethnic slaughter, oppression and territorial aggression. We must act boldly, quickly, or face consequences we neither forecasted nor can afford to face.
 
Originally Posted by Merlin1047
So if folks in the middle east, or in Africa, or the Balkans, or the Basque region of Spain, or Kurdish separatists in Iraq, want to fight it out with their neighbors - fine. Let them go at it. Who are we to interfere with their determination to murder one another? The cold, hard fact is this - No matter how hard we may try, no matter how many American lives we may sacrifice, we will NEVER prevent the mayhem caused by tribalism in the world. We will NEVER prevent people killing each other who are determined to find a way to do exactly that.


I think I agree with this. I say think because I do not know enough about the issue to form an opinion, yet. It seems to me though, that if we charge into every dispute, it will leave are forces thin and weary. Rather than the US charging into everything, we should take a stonger stance with our partners at the failed UN and get them to act, that is what the UN is for. I understand that it has failed, however, we created the UN because we knew that the US alone could not stop all the world's ills, therefore, this should be our focus. If we can't fix the UN, then maybe it should be disbanded (doubtful it will happen, but it could spook others to action). The US and Japan I believe fund the UN the most, without our dollars, they would have a very hard time staying together.
 
I cannot condone sending the US Military into harms way unless it can be shown that the situation is a clear and present danger to the US or an ally we have chosen to protect via treaty.

The actual problem is that the average member of the great unwashed cannot determine if the intervention meets the "clear and present" standard since he/she doesn't have all the info the decision maker has. One more reason that trust and integrity have to be factored as we elect our leaders.
 
NATO and I have spoken about this topic quite a bit. When US vital interests are engaged, we should act where warranted.

When intervention would be a 'good thing', but US does not have strategic interests, we should use our 'moral authority' and whatever carrots/sticks we can, ie., Sudan.
 
Kathianne said:
NATO and I have spoken about this topic quite a bit. When US vital interests are engaged, we should act where warranted.

When intervention would be a 'good thing', but US does not have strategic interests, we should use our 'moral authority' and whatever carrots/sticks we can, ie., Sudan.

Sudan is a clear case where I personally do not see a clear and present danger to you and I, our way of life, our physical being, or anything else. It is a human tragedy and the perpetrators should be hung. Isn't this sort of thing a primary reason the UN exists? I may be wrong since I never really studied the UN history........ but......... community of nations policing a rogue... and all that.
 
pegwinn said:
Sudan is a clear case where I personally do not see a clear and present danger to you and I, our way of life, our physical being, or anything else. It is a human tragedy and the perpetrators should be hung. Isn't this sort of thing a primary reason the UN exists? I may be wrong since I never really studied the UN history........ but......... community of nations policing a rogue... and all that.

Exactly why the UN was created. Sudan is another case in point why UN is a failure, why someone like NATOAIR is arguing the US should deal with, but I disagree. In another thread I wrote on Sudan and UN today.

The US cannot afford to play sheriff. However the US was the first to declare what is happening in the Sudan IS genocide. UK is with us, problem is coming from the remainder of the UNSC. So what to do?

The UN was a step up from League of Nations. Perhaps it's time to try a new 'world body' scrapping the old?
 
Kathianne said:
Exactly why the UN was created. Sudan is another case in point why UN is a failure, why someone like NATOAIR is arguing the US should deal with, but I disagree. In another thread I wrote on Sudan and UN today.

The US cannot afford to play sheriff. However the US was the first to declare what is happening in the Sudan IS genocide. UK is with us, problem is coming from the remainder of the UNSC. So what to do?

The UN was a step up from League of Nations. Perhaps it's time to try a new 'world body' scrapping the old?

At the risk of sounding racist and starting a flame war: How about we form a UN2 and include a membership committee ala the country clubs across suburbia? Then we can allow membership based on "our kind" of values. I'm not saying we would not help non-members. But we could publish a "standard" for the nation to meet before applying for membership. Heck, we could even have a lower standard for provisional members to start at and a final standard to attain full membership.
 
pegwinn said:
At the risk of sounding racist and starting a flame war: How about we form a UN2 and include a membership committee ala the country clubs across suburbia? Then we can allow membership based on "our kind" of values. I'm not saying we would not help non-members. But we could publish a "standard" for the nation to meet before applying for membership. Heck, we could even have a lower standard for provisional members to start at and a final standard to attain full membership.

I have heard suggestions that perhaps the US should join with other democracies of the world. Considering some of the values other 'democracies' are espousing currently, I am not sure that would work any better.

My current take is that we have only several allies who see the world more or less like the US: Britain, Australia, Japan, Israel and a substantial percentage of Eastern Europe.
 
Yurt said:
Isn't that what the league of nations did?
Close, but without teeth and without the US, (thanks to the lack of political skills of Wilson.)

The US, Japan, UK, AU, all have teeth and $.
 
Japan has teeth, but isn't in their const to not have military action outside of japan? I know in Japan there are factions that want to change this as this was the result of surrender in WWII, however, I think there a many pacifists in Japan.

But those countries would be good. Too bad NATO doesn't solve this problem for us, however, NATO is really designed for cold war stuff.
 
Yurt said:
Japan has teeth, but isn't in their const to not have military action outside of japan? I know in Japan there are factions that want to change this as this was the result of surrender in WWII, however, I think there a many pacifists in Japan.

But those countries would be good. Too bad NATO doesn't solve this problem for us, however, NATO is really designed for cold war stuff.

Yep, it is too bad about NATO, but France and Germany are at a different point in time.

Japan seems to be in the process of reworking their military positions. They have been active in Iraq. They are in the position of living close to an increasingly aggressive China, not to mention NK. Interesting days indeed.
 
and we live in a world where those who commit genocide are allowed to survive with no threat to their existence.

I'm not necessarily asking for troops, but my God, we could at least do one up on Clinton and launch Tomahawk strikes against all the Janjaweed camps and Sudanese Air Force positions.

That would at least show the US will "punish" those responsible for acts of evil like genocide, and that it will exact a price for those who want to commit it.
 
NATO AIR said:
and we live in a world where those who commit genocide are allowed to survive with no threat to their existence.

I'm not necessarily asking for troops, but my God, we could at least do one up on Clinton and launch Tomahawk strikes against all the Janjaweed camps and Sudanese Air Force positions.

That would at least show the US will "punish" those responsible for acts of evil like genocide, and that it will exact a price for those who want to commit it.

This is a good point. Unfortunately, there would most likely be a large political fall out from this. Maybe we should not care about politics when it comes to genocide, at least I don't think we should. I do not understand though, why the UN or anybody else for that matter, will do nothing to prevent this.
 
Yurt said:
This is a good point. Unfortunately, there would most likely be a large political fall out from this. Maybe we should not care about politics when it comes to genocide, at least I don't think we should. I do not understand though, why the UN or anybody else for that matter, will do nothing to prevent this.

I agree with the 'should', but reality is the US is not rich enough, nor willing to incur the losses by fighting all these battles on our own. As for the UN, well look at the deals that France, Russia, Germany have in the area.

At some point, though I haven't a clue when, an organization will form, overtly or not of a coalition of the willing and able.
 
Yurt said:
This is a good point. Unfortunately, there would most likely be a large political fall out from this. Maybe we should not care about politics when it comes to genocide, at least I don't think we should. I do not understand though, why the UN or anybody else for that matter, will do nothing to prevent this.

Its great training for the navy guys and a feel-good for the military to have gotten rid of some very bad people. If we wanted to throw some intel behind it, we could probably kill or seriously maim a number of important Janjaweed leaders.

These camps are essentially terrorist camps. How many fundamentalist/jihadists are serving there slaughtering the enemies of "Islam" in their minds that served in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places before, and that we will face in the future on the battlefield in Syria, Iran or some other hotspot?
 
I'm all for scrapping the UN. NATO too. The UN is basically a collection of pointlessness and bureaucratic gridlock. It makes our gov't look positively smooth.

NATO is a strategic alignment to respond to an enemy that no longer poses a threat in the form of the USSR. We might want to update our treaties to reflect the current world situation. Realigning many of the soldiers assigned to NATO was a good start.

As far as being the world's police goes, screw them. The world is ungrateful, so let the world fend for itself. If anyone screws with us, blow them off the map and reverse trend by letting THEM rebuild their own selves.

In the meantime, enforcing our borders with some of the miltiary we currently have deployed would go a long way toward shutting down all this illegal immigration that is destroying the infrastructure of the Southwestern US.
 

Forum List

Back
Top