When it's ok to be "policemen" of the World

[JakeStarkey]

The Founders discouraged foreign alliances.

Unfortunately the twin themes of foreign trade and foreign diplomacy, coupled to Manifest Destiny and nationalism, have propelled the U.S. into an increasingly connected global economy. Neo-conservatism, as developed by Kristol and his followers, argues for an ever-increasing "hard" approach by America into the Middle East to secure energy sources while protecting its flanks against a resurgent Russia and an encroaching Chinese economic threat.

They encouraged fascist-state-corporatist alliances with major corporations along with social conservatives to build a "permanent" electoral majority. They destroyed the American public's credulity with the worst foreign diplomatic and economic mistakes in our national history.

 

[Diuretic]

Interesting comments and some surprising views considering the authors usual positions.

For those who are (rightly) aggrieved that US blood and treasure is being spent in countries outside the US you need to ask a simple question. Why?

The normative approach to the initial questions is all very well but an analysis of the forces at work that drive the US government to put its military into other countries and its intelligence operatives to interfere in foreign domestic matters would show that it's primarily economic, not "security", concerns that drive interventionist policies. And I need to point out that those same issues drive every other country that seeks to interfere in similar ways, just at a lower level, in other countries' domestic affairs. As an example look at China in Africa. My own country behaves in a similar manner in its much smaller zone of influence. And again, the same drivers are at work.

 

[Tony_S]

The Founders discouraged foreign alliances.

Unfortunately the twin themes of foreign trade and foreign diplomacy, coupled to Manifest Destiny and nationalism, have propelled the U.S. into an increasingly connected global economy. Neo-conservatism, as developed by Kristol and his followers, argues for an ever-increasing "hard" approach by America into the Middle East to secure energy sources while protecting its flanks against a resurgent Russia and an encroaching Chinese economic threat.

They encouraged fascist-state-corporatist alliances with major corporations along with social conservatives to build a "permanent" electoral majority. They destroyed the American public's credulity with the worst foreign diplomatic and economic mistakes in our national history.

Yeah...but the neoconservatives are out, the Brzezinski faction is in. This is clearly demonstrated by the provocations on Russia's 'Near Abroad'. Besides, the Neocons are focused on the Middle East, as the affairs of Europe have little impact on their worldview.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Founders discouraged foreign alliances.

Unfortunately the twin themes of foreign trade and foreign diplomacy, coupled to Manifest Destiny and nationalism, have propelled the U.S. into an increasingly connected global economy. Neo-conservatism, as developed by Kristol and his followers, argues for an ever-increasing "hard" approach by America into the Middle East to secure energy sources while protecting its flanks against a resurgent Russia and an encroaching Chinese economic threat.

They encouraged fascist-state-corporatist alliances with major corporations along with social conservatives to build a "permanent" electoral majority. They destroyed the American public's credulity with the worst foreign diplomatic and economic mistakes in our national history.

You are forgetting one crucial and unavoidable truth about the neoconservatives...

Retired General Anthony Zinni former CENTCOM commander of all American troops in the Middle East found out when he criticized the neocons...their dual loyalty...

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.”

Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.”
60 Minutes

 

[K9Buck]

I've heard people say that the U.S. should not intervene in affairs around the world because we're not the "world's policemen".

I'd like to ask those that generally feel that way what, if any, circumstances should compel the U.S. to intervene into the affairs of another nation. Or, do you feel that we should not intervene under any circumstances?

When you are personally willing to put your ass on the front line and you have a way to pay for it

I understand and appreciate your point. It's more than a fair one.

 

[Tony_S]

The Founders discouraged foreign alliances.

Unfortunately the twin themes of foreign trade and foreign diplomacy, coupled to Manifest Destiny and nationalism, have propelled the U.S. into an increasingly connected global economy. Neo-conservatism, as developed by Kristol and his followers, argues for an ever-increasing "hard" approach by America into the Middle East to secure energy sources while protecting its flanks against a resurgent Russia and an encroaching Chinese economic threat.

They encouraged fascist-state-corporatist alliances with major corporations along with social conservatives to build a "permanent" electoral majority. They destroyed the American public's credulity with the worst foreign diplomatic and economic mistakes in our national history.

You are forgetting one crucial and unavoidable truth about the neoconservatives...

Retired General Anthony Zinni former CENTCOM commander of all American troops in the Middle East found out when he criticized the neocons...their dual loyalty...

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.”

Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.”
60 Minutes

It's interesting how the Neocons and the Likud are on the same page, especially given the ideological influences of Leo Strauss. His influences were a combination of proto-Nazis and
Nietzsche. What we find in Strauss - and the Neocons in general - is a hatred of the homogeneous state, albeit in an almost barbaric and pathological fashion. He refers to a return to the primal horde (feudalism) and how the homogeneous state threatens oligarchy.

 

[K9Buck]

Hey guys, thanks for sharing your version of history with us. However, the topic is what we should do NOW, not what may have happened in the past. Thanks for your consideration.

 

[Tony_S]

Hey guys, thanks for sharing your version of history with us. However, the topic is what we should do NOW, not what may have happened in the past. Thanks for your consideration.

Without an understanding of the ideological underpinnings and financial interests of the ruling class in this country, I don't see how we can understand the present or the future.

 

[K9Buck]

Hey guys, thanks for sharing your version of history with us. However, the topic is what we should do NOW, not what may have happened in the past. Thanks for your consideration.

Without an understanding of the ideological underpinnings and financial interests of the ruling class in this country, I don't see how we can understand the present or the future.

I think it's a simple question, Tony. Do you think it's ever ok for the U.S. to be the world's "policeman" and why or why not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't think "OK" but rather "when" is the tilt. I do think because it is impossible to unlink American foreign policy from American foreign trade (since the flag follows trade), the effort has to be on deemphasizing state-corporate synergy.

 

[Tony_S]

Hey guys, thanks for sharing your version of history with us. However, the topic is what we should do NOW, not what may have happened in the past. Thanks for your consideration.

Without an understanding of the ideological underpinnings and financial interests of the ruling class in this country, I don't see how we can understand the present or the future.

I think it's a simple question, Tony. Do you think it's ever ok for the U.S. to be the world's "policeman" and why or why not.

No.

It's not really that the US is the world's policeman. I see the US acting on behalf of various special interests which have become transnational in nature.

I think the primary function of a military should be to protect the country from threats.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It's never ok. It really is that simple in the end. Being the "World's Policeman" and "World's Referee" will always be a Lose/Lose for this nation. On one hand you're accused of being that "Evil Imperialist" and on the other you're accused of not caring and "Not doing enough." It's all just a Lose/Lose for us in the end. We are not an Empire so we should stop behaving as if we were. A more neutral and Non-Foreign Interventionist Foreign Policy is the logical way forward for this nation. Lets mind our own business and focus on taking care of our own people. That's the way our Founding Fathers wanted it. Globalism & Internationalism are way overrated.