Correspondent of the Day
Why Are We The World Police?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Does anyone feel like we are going through déjà vu? We went into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. Although he is still out there giving us problems, he seems to have been put on the back burner. I am still waiting for clarification from Washington as to how President George W. Bush managed to segue from going after bin Laden to freeing Iraq.
Now we have troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and are given regular doses of pap about fighting terrorism. We are being asked to send 40,000 more troops there -- not to win but to hold onto what we have. Seems to me I've heard that song before. Didn't we face the same arguments when we were in Vietnam?
According to the bigwigs in Washington, withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq is not open for discussion. Why not? Why must American servicemen and women continue to fight and die for someone else's freedom? Why is it necessary that the U.S. be the world's police force? For that matter, why must we maintain military bases in other countries? Other nations do not do so -- why do we?
If it were up to me, I would recall American troops from all over the world and station them along our own borders. Their lives wouldn't be at risk every day, our borders would be secure, and it would sure put a dent in the influx of illegal aliens. I would sleep a lot more soundly under those circumstances and so would a lot of other Americans.
Edward W. Allen.
Red Oak.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Now if we could just get the rest of the globe to cooperate, there could be peace everywhere.
“Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America,nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same way in any country.“
Hermann Goering
“Peace by persuasion has a plesant sound, but I think we should not be able to work it. We should have to tame the human race first, and history seems to show that that cannot be done.“
Mark Twain.
James Madison:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.
The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both.
No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
If our nation is not in continual warfare, what should we call it?
Henry Louis Mencken:
Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
PS.
If you are wondering about Vietnam and Korea and various South American and Central European adventures, just substitute “Communist” for “Islamic”...
Great question!
I was thinking about the same thing, actually have been thinking it about it for my whole life!
But the best I can say is that right now we are concerned, not about terrorism, but about a “radical” Islamic State.
We see Pakistan leaning heavlily toward radical Islamic fundamentalism, we see Iran with Nukes, we see Iraq falling into Chaos and becoming a failed state and eventually part of the
Islamic state that would reach all across the middle east. Correct me if I am wrong.
I am not concerned as much about the Islamic state as I am the “radical” Islamic state. Not every Islamic state HAS to be RADICAL, in fact many Islamic countries are NOT radical. The problem is that we try to co-op the Islamic state to be more moderate and prop up rulers that are either corrupt or oppressive. This only ends up supplying the radical elements with more reasons to become radical!
I think the resignation of this US Diplomat in Afghanistan shows what we are really fighting is not “radical” Islam but just internal power struggles, poverty, lack of education, crime, corruption and the natural aggression toward any occupying force.
How to help with out it backfiring that is the question?
Maybe we just need to allow Islam it’s space, quit propping up corrupt leaders, give the people what they want, an Islamic rule…maybe the radical elements that keep killing innocent people will eventually be driven out by their own people?
I don’t actually like the Islamic treatment of women and non-believers, but there are different levels of tolerence in the various Islamic Countries, Iran actually appears to me to be more tolerant that Saudi Arabia. When was the last time you heard about a woman voting in Saudi, when was the last demonstration you saw in Saudi, who has a “King” that is not elected? But who do we support?
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement