It reads like the introduction to a superhero movie, or an episode of 24, or a summary of the entire plot of Team America: World Police.
There is only one small problem, Team America does't appear to want to be the World Police anymore.
Since World War II, the United States has assumed the position 'guarantor of world order' and the 'enforcer of global rules'. Whenever a threat to world peace or stability has emerged such as in 1991 Kuwait or 1998 Kosovo or 2002 Afghanistan or even the 'lead from behind' route taken in 2011 Libya. In any of these instances, if the U.S. had not acted, nothing would have been done to combat tyrants and terrorists.
That argument that it is the responsibility for the United States to take action has hit a roadblock. The American people are not interested in playing that role any more. In truth, Americans have never been enthusiastic about assuming the burden of global leadership. We didn't get into World War I until the final year of war. We entered World War II only after we were bombed by the Japanese two years after the war started. And especially after the Vietnam conflict, it is hard for the American people to take an interest in the affairs of other nations.
This is reflected in the political standings of our politicians too. Democrats are quicker to abdicate this responsibility to international groups such as the UN. Where as the Republican party has been historically up to the task of being the muscle in foreign policies. Now, the political landscape is shifting on the Republican's side, where ever louder subsets of libertarians and tea party members promote policies that include limited government and non-intervention all the way to reducing our global military presence.
In all of this we are trying to answer one fundamental question; Is it in our best interests to expend our resources to promote our agenda in other countries? The resolve of one who believes in the blanketing 'You leave us alone and we'll leave you alone' is tested greatly when we see a democratic republic like the Ukraine invaded by an embolden President Putin. The fear of the such a large portion of the globe falling into a limited number of ruling countries is a valid fear that has lead America into almost every prior war. The person who wants to accept the duty of being the worlds police and draw a line in the sand must be prepared to defend that line with capital of money and blood.
For years we enjoyed the relative peace of a world that did not question the U.S.'s resolve to stand up for democracy and against tyranny in all forms, so long as certain criteria are met. We paid it forward in World War II and other battles, but our copiousness of respect appears to be running on empty.
What is, then, the correct answer? The current establishment's stance is easy enough to figure out. Cut the military, take no action in Syria, and threaten to not attend a G8 shin dig if Russia doesn't stop expanding their empire. Until the next election cycle we are not going to answer the 911 calls of the world anymore. In my opinion, this is one of the stupidest things we could allow to happen. The unfortunate thing about the Ukraine take over is that it is too late. Ukraine is not in the EU, they are not a member of NATO, we have no direct ties that would allow us to take a any tangible stance to stop Russia from doing exactly what it is that they are doing. Foreign policy is a chess match and Putin just placed us in check. Chalk this one up to failing to see this coming, despite the warnings of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney during the last 2 presidential election cycles. This was nothing more then a brazen lack of foresight, and a weak foreign policy stance from our President.
America's roll for the next generation may be decided in the next few weeks. Our next move needs to be one that is proactive that places Russia back on the defensive. Establish new and public trade partnerships with former block countries that are practicing democracy and promote more policies that allow countries like Georgia, Belarus, and Romania to become independently wealthy and more appealing to EU or NATO membership. Then, we need to start promoting non-American-centric alliances, such as the African Union. Despite it's flaws, that union provides the avenue for regions to be more self policing and will, over time, alleviate the burden that we currently bear too much of. But, the most important policy change that we can implement that would prevent such an emboldened move from occurring again? Stop punting on enforcement of items that we have already stated our stance on. Case and point, Syria. He stated clearly that the use of chemical weapons was not to be tolerated, he stated clearly that we have proof that Syria was in fact using chemical weapons. Our response to date? Nothing, we allow ourselves to be stone walled and played for fools. No doubt to the chagrin of allies like Japan, South Korea, and Israel, who are largely dependent on us to deter action from countries like China, North Korea, or Iran.
That is my conclusion, the end game needs to be a world that relies much less on us to take direct action, but we are making wrong move after wrong move to achieve anything even close to such a world. We can neither make one single sweeping move to suddenly become spectators in the world and abdicate our duties that we have already signed onto, nor can we continue in perpetuity the ever increasing cost of becoming a formidable fighting force for not only ourselves but scores of other countries.
Is it a thin line to follow? Yes. It will require some scale ups and scale downs periods of our military forces by region over time, a couple decades to get to a point where we have a powerful central force located within our borders and several quick response teams designed to work in conjuncture with a pacific alliance groups and European alliance groups. At this time, however, we have established that we are dangerously far off that line to the side of spectator, it is time to swing back to the side of being the worlds police until we can get the international structure needed to allow the proper winding down of our duties as a nation who has taken on too many responsibilities in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment