The problem is, I'm not convinced that "the US shouldn't pay attention to stuff going outside its borders" is any more sound a basis for policy and lasting peace than "the US should meddle in everyone's affairs."
Americans are no longer interested in policing the world, Mr. Obama | The Raw Story
What is perhaps most surprising about this is that the Obama administration is seeking authorisation for a rather limited use of force. It is loudly proclaiming that there will be no US boots on the ground, no effort at regime change, no direct engagement in the Syrian civil war – just a few …
67 view(s)
But no one is saying we shouldn't pay attention
That's how I interpret the many, repeated statements, "The US should mind its own business." "Let the folks over there take care of it." "We should focus on all the problems we have at home."
Like +Rick Gary, I also didn't take that conclusion from the article, either. However, I do agree with +Dave Hill's opinion that a myopic view isn't going to make the world a better place.
My admittedly simple and somewhat naive opinion is this: There's no reason for the US to be the world's police. We need to cut back on the amount of troops we have overseas. We also need to cut back on financial aid to foreign countries. Imo, there's not much of a difference between influencing with brute force and influencing with bribes. If the United Nations specifically asks for US military aid, we'll consider it. But we should never take it upon ourselves to start a police action. After we do that, I think we need to INCREASE our charitable efforts in aid due to natural disasters, epidemics, and abject poverty. Rather than be known as the world's police, we need to be known (if we aren't already) as the world's best neighbor.
+James D. – It was less the article per se (which was pretty balanced in its writing) than the multitude of comments I see elsewhere on the topic.
Some questions / thoughts out loud:
1. If we aren't the world's police, then who is? Is it an ad hoc assemblage each time, as folks can be bothered (and will each potential conflict need to overcome the "we aren't the world's police" barrier)? Do we only intervene when it's next door or a clear economic interest (and does that make it better)?
The UN, frankly, is utterly broken as an international body for this sort of thing. With China, the US, and Russia on the permanent security council, only interventions that don't gore any of their oxen will survive a veto — Russia's interests in Syria make the UN unable to act even if it were an even greater calamity there.
2. I do agree we need to cut back on overseas military. We simply cannot afford to maintain the military presence we have.
3. I agree that we need to stop subsidizing defense contractors in selling arms overseas. I agree we need to do more in the way of humanitarian aid. The fuzzy gray between those needs discussion.
The problem is the omni-shambles that was Bush foreign policy. No one mainstream objected to Afghanistan – The Taliban were an obvious threat, not only to US and Israel, but to anyone who didn’t buy into their version of Islam. Following 9/11 attacking was the accepted option.
The problem is Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld didn’t want Afghanistan. They wanted Iraq- the feeling was Saddam had not been properly taught a lesson – he had outlasted Daddy, so despite losing Kuwait/Gulf I, he was seen as winning. Cheney and Rumsfeld did their best to skew history to blame him for WTC.
While many of the US public were guillible enough to believe Saddam=9/11, no one who actually had influence believed it: The Whitehouse was told repeatedly there was no link by their own intelligence services. Hence WMD.
The attack on Iraq had a number of unfortunate consequences
1) Not enough resource could be allocated. This meant it bogged down.
2) It dragged resources from Afghanistan. A country that had been sewn up tight became a new Vietnam. Al Qaida was able to carry out more attacks. Not only did this have military consequences, it meant that civilians lost confidence in the West. It also meant that a stable, progressive government became impossible. Crucially it also allowed Bin Laden to escape. Without Iraq, Afghanistan 2013 would be very different.
3) It convinced the Muslim world the West was on an anti-Islamic crusade (Yeah, could have chosen a better phrase there, George). It didn’t matter that Saddam had a liberal religious policy – Tariq Aziz is a Christian. This acted as a recruiting agent for AQ, at the same time as the Western forces were stretched.
Without Iraq Afghanistan would be a different place. Quite possibly there would be no war weariness. Anything to add, Mark Anthony?
All the good that Bush did with Afghanistan initially has been buried by the cluster-fuck which is Iraq, and not only outlasts his Presidency, but possibly his life. People now think Afghanistan was a oil driven decision (when it wasn’t), and are so against it.
Without this quagmire no one would be scared of intervention against genocide.
I’m inclined to agree with most of your analysis, @LH. I decline to speculate on personal reasons why Bush turned to Iraq, though even leaving WMDs, out, the systematic repression and violence of the Saddam regime was at least that of Assad. Regardless, the feebly constructed rationalizations / deceptions behind the Iraq invasion discredited any immediate future attempts to justify a significant US military action, and the half-assed way that it was approached not only weakened the Afghanistan occupation (with the results you mention) but helped ensure Iraq would turn into the mess it is today — and, again, has made the US (and the rest of the world) skittish about any sort of military intervention, even it it were for the best of reasons.
Some years ago I read a book – I think it may be ‘Against All Enemies’ By Richard (Dick) A. Clarke (I’m having trouble finding it- it’s web searches are being cloaked by a different Dick Clark- some muso). He was very senior in the CIA, and he recounts how on 12 Sept the Whitehouse basically instructed him to find a link with Iraq. When he said there wasn’t one, they had looked, he was told to look again.
Saddam’s problem was he was no longer our bastard. Yes he was a brutal dictator, but then so are many other leaders round the world, many as bad if not worse.. He was a Bastard when the head of the CIA in the 80’s, Mr G.H. Bush, was selling him WMD.
The Bush Whitehouse, if not Bush then Cheney/Rumsfeld wanted Iraq, the impression being given of unfinished business.
Bush was head of the CIA in the late 70s; in the 80s he was VP and President. That said, yes, there was a certain element of no longer being “our bastard,” which wouldn’t have been as much of an issue if not for his demonstrably destabilizing role in the Middle East, vs., say, Central Africa.
As to targeting Iraq specifically, with 9-11 as an excuse, yeah, pretty much.
Oh bugger – you’re right! Who am I thinking of shaking hands with Saddam? Rumsfeld?
Yeah, that’d be Rummy.