Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

America the Policeman?

21:01 / 31.01.02

At what point was America declared policeman of the world? I think that maybe this wouldn't have happened if America had just kept its nose out things that didn't involve it. Now I have little interest in military history, but from what I remember the only war we had any business being in was World War 2. Vietnam? Not our business, a great deal of people died there in a war, excuse me, police action, that had nothing to do with us. Korea? I don't remember the deal with Korea, buts its probably the same. I could go on, but it'd be more of the same, a listing of squabbles between OTHER countries that had nothing to do with us. Maybe if we had let everybody get through their own problems we wouldn't have planes flying into buldings and now there's a chance of planes being flown into nuclear power plants.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Trijhaos ]

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

21:17 / 31.01.02

Well, it's big, corrupt and armed - what better policeman could there be?

Ho hum. In answer to your question, I would respectfully suggest that the idea of a conflict involving every major power except America being "not America's business", exempli gratia WWI, is a pretty wierd one.

But in the case of Vietnam, Korea, Panama, Belise...in all of these things US interests *were* involved. Sometimes very directly in the sense of propping up US puppet governments or supporting pro-American revolutionaries US or, applying the "rotten apple" theory proposed originally by Harry Truman and backed up by the Truman Doctrine of 1947, to ensure that threats to "free" (i.e. capitalist) nations were hemmed in.

Try around here for a fairly uncomplicated (though I am not an American historian and can't vouch for its accuracy) explanation of the importance to "selfless policing of the World" to America's economic well-being. Or here for a Chomsky comment on the whole business.

21:19 / 31.01.02

VERY CRUDE SUMMARY

end of world war two, US is essentially THE superpower - russia, most of europe devastated by the war, whereas there haven't been any attacks on the continental US. they have the bomb. they have a ton of money. they basically rent out western europe - the marshall plan - and sponsor ex-fascist militants to put down popular/democratic/socialist reforms in places like greece, which might become hostile to US business interests. this sets pattern of sponsoring, arming and training fascist death squads in any territory the US wants to control but can't buy outright. US also decides south america belongs to it, and woe betide any jacked up little country that decides it should pursue it's own people's interests. US starts consolidating a power base in the middle east - basically for oil money - esp. through saudi arabia and, once it's established, israel.

massive quantities of murder, violence, police action and terrorism follow. ronald reagan, i think, is the first to use the term 'the world's policeman', but basically it is just the latest in a long string of pseudo-benign justifications for US imperialism.

that, basically, is why people want to fly planes into big tall american buildings. well, some of them have economic or just power interests; but i figure yr average rank&file al-quada (sp?) kid has more or less exactly the same motivations as a US serviceman who wants revenge on those who have devastated his country.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

21:37 / 31.01.02

Can I just say for the record that just this once I was trying to be gentle...

21:51 / 31.01.02

I said World War 2 was the only war America should have gotten involved with was because its the only war I know of that America was actually provoked into by destruction of property. I guess America could have just gone over bombed Japan and came home while patting themselves on the back for a job well done and never gotten involved in the main conflict.

21:56 / 31.01.02

Damage to property is not, and has never been, the only reason for a nation entering a war.

10:00 / 01.02.02

Then how to explain the current thing going on. Sure, people died but it seems to me that everybody's more worried about the damn buildings than the loss of life.

10:05 / 01.02.02

I think that's because the destruction of the buildings was such a potent visual symbol, rather than because people are more worried about losing the Twin Towers than the people who died - it's more of a metaphor than anything else.

And in this case (though there are several arguments which say that 9/11 was a catalyst rather than the sole cause for the subsequent conflict) I think it was less the destruction than the *fact of the attack* which provided the impetus for action in the Middle East.

11:12 / 01.02.02

Let's try a thought experiment here:

If the part of the world, let's say, I don't know, Africa, was in need of a large sum of cash or (cash equivalent material goods) because of a humanitarian crisis, would you agree that it was the U.S.'s moral obligation, as the economic hegemon and the largest GDP in the world, to provide the lion's share of that aid?

(not to say that the U.S. presently does provide a fair share of global humanitarian aid)

Now suppose the crisis in question was military in nature. A civil war that involved genocide or something of that nature. If military intervention was considered justified by a large portion of the sovereign nations of the world (through some body such as the UN, perhaps), would it make sense that the U.S. should provide the bulk of the military force considering it's vast technical and tactical superiority, as well as it's world-history-unprecedented mobility, speed of deployment, and resupply chain?

What I'm trying to establish is NOT an apologetic for past U.S. actions of dubious moral character; rather, instead of making blanket statements that the U.S. should by an large stay at home, persons concerned with world security should hope for a more activist U.S., albeit with more multilateral cooperation.

The U.S. staying at home is only going to solve problems for one country: The U.S. An activist U.S. has a greater prospect for global good.

Thoughts?

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

11:34 / 01.02.02

You seem to be desribing a U.N Task Force. It is assigned by the United Nations to achieve a set of goals set down after discussions in the United Nations.

Comparatively few people have problems with the U.S contributing troops to U.N task forces. Many wish that it would do it more often.

The problem for many people with the U.S' actions in, for example Vietnam, was that they were perceived as unilateral US advantage-seeking which simultaneously claimed to represent "the Civilised World". One point of nervousness this time round is that the "Global Alliance Against Terror" has no real existence or ability to affect US policy, rather a fervent desire on the part of many countries not to have the shit kicked out of it next.

The view in Europe on the Missile Defence System is also worth looking at.

So, assumign the world is pretty much as it is, and assuming that the UN can be relied upon to *ahem* protect the interests of those memebrs who most need its help, a more activist US prepared to act within the mandate of the International Community would get a lot of support, I imagine.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: He said he had a horrible Haus ]

11:55 / 01.02.02

By Trijhaos: quote:I guess America could have just gone over bombed Japan and came home while patting themselves on the back for a job well done and never gotten involved in the main conflict.

Please. Trijhaos.
USA didn't enter the War just because of that. There was inner pressure from the american Congress already to go to war, but people were against it. THEN Pearl harbor happened.
USA's motto at the time (which still remains till today) was "What's in it for us?".

How to make a situation of war become desirable - and, most importan, and profitable.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Marquis de Jade ]

11:58 / 01.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Todd:
(not to say that the U.S. presently does provide a fair share of global humanitarian aid)

One problem with more aid is the form it takes. If the US pledges $50 million in US Aid to Afghanistan, all that means is that Afghanistan now has $50mil in debt to pay back and interest payments start soon.

In order to help the world, the US would have to give up some power to the UN and Intl. Criminal Court, which will happen.. um.. never. I don't see them ever relinquishing any sovereignty unless the WTO bites them or something.

12:06 / 01.02.02

Well, yeah, there's no need to feel optimistic about any multilateralism coming out of the U.S. soon, what with the idiotic "axis of evil" speech (which is doubly idiotic, since both North Korea and Iran have been increasingly more open to dialog with America) and, as you said, the missile defense shield (not specifically the idea of a shield and research towards completing it, but the bull-headed way the Bush admin has gone about it).

But the U.N. Taskforce, such as it is, is there's no binding force behind it, and even U.N. sanctioned operations are considered at large as U.S. imperialism. I'm thinking specifically of U.N. intervention in Somalia in the early 90s. The U.S. led U.N. force was originally tasked with ensuring that humanitarian aid was distributed fairly and to those who needed it, in the context of a "Mad Max" esque conflict between "warlords." The mission mutated, for understandable reasons, into U.N. sanctioned actions against a particular warlord, Aidid. After this missions underwent what might be seen as a minor setback in the grand scheme of things, the U.S. pulled out of the U.N. taskforce due to domestic pressures. The conflict is perceived by and large as a defeat of american imperialism, not as a defest for the U.N. taskforce and the goals of the U.N., which it really was.

12:34 / 01.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Marquis de Jade:
USA's motto at the time (which still remains till today) was "What's in it for us?". ]

As is everyone else's. The US just has the widest horns in the global china shop.