World Police: The Role Of America In The 21St Century

The average citizen certainly has good reason to be weary of. Domestic spending has been neglected, and the nation remains firmly divided into political camps with exchanges that ideally should be debate marked by barrages of vitriol and hatred for the opposing side. The American public, as a whole, has lost sight of the unstated goals of institutions such as the United Nations, which are indeed the liberation and freedom of oppressed citizens the world over. The only democratic nation with the power to achieve such a goal by application of surgical or overwhelming force is the United States of America, and despite what the American voter may perceive, “reports of the passing of U. S. hegemony are greatly exaggerated”2. There are certainly other methods by which this end goal might be achieved, however, history has shown that actors within these structures such as the United Nations or G-8 will act to preserve their interests at the costs of the common person the world over. This is but one voice in defense of the concept of American primacy and interventionist politics.

Since the closing brackets of the Second World War, the primacy of American power has been the focus of a large portion of world politics. American policymakers have long worked to position America as a preeminent global force standing for human rights and American interests both geopolitically and socioeconomically. “The U. S. economy is currently twice as large as its closest rival, Japan. California's economy alone has risen to become the fifth largest in the world (using market exchange-rate estimates), ahead of France and just behind the United Kingdom. ” Using the frameworks of bilateral defense agreements, trade agreements, control of major international financial institutions, veto power on the UN Security Council, and a peerless military feared the world to which “No state in the modern history of international politics has come close to the military predominance”1 our nation has positioned itself at the very top of the global food chain. The opposition to American hegemony has often come from far left or authoritarian leaders who see the danger that a powerful America poses to their domestic and international interests. These nations see the threat that a resurgent America poses to their policies and work to actively undermine American power. One of the many areas that American dominance of the world arena can benefit the average individual is quality of life. Capitalism has been shown to be the dominant force to provide the greatest tangible benefits to the largest amount of people throughout the globe, as well as contributing to the self-sustaining cycle of military and technological dominance. the many detractors of American economic power seem to not acknowledge the benefits that they reap from living within a capital system promulgated by military might the dynamic forces that contribute to LIC (Low Intensity Conflict) are change, discontent, poverty, violence, and instability.

Citizens who live within socialist or authoritarian countries are often subject to dramatic periods of inflation, which can lead to famine or worse as seen in Venezuela recently under Hugo Chavez. “Tell the readers of The New York Times that there are no medicines in our hospitals, no doctors, no cardiologists, hardly any personnel, broken equipment and few seats for patients to sit in. ”

Adding to the complex conversation surrounding American primacy, the necessity of American military might has been questioned in recent years as the cold war seemed to have been won by the West, with the Soviet Union in shambles and struggling towards free market capitalism and a form of democracy, and the slow acceptance by China of free trade principles with the eventual hope of democratic values infiltrating that nation as though by osmosis. The developments of global communications networks (cell phones and internet) have led, however, to the rapid development of world spanning networks of loosely affiliated terror groups with the capability and willpower to unleash mass casualty events on innocent civilians. “U. S. primacy is also being challenged in other realms, such as military effectiveness and diplomacy. Measures of military spending are not the same as measures of military capacity. September 11 showed how a small investment by terrorists could cause extraordinary levels of human and physical damage. Many of the most costly pieces of modern weaponry are not particularly useful in modern conflicts in which traditional battlefields are replaced by urban combat zones. In such environments, large numbers of lightly armed soldiers can prove to be more than a match for smaller numbers of highly trained and better-armed U. S. troops”3Arguments for and against military campaigns on foreign soil are not the bailiwick of this paper. However, even the most staunch anti-war activist must admit that at the very minimum America need maintain a rapid-response strike force that can readily strike the state or non-state actors who would support such criminals.

Additionally, events such as a reemerging Eastern Bloc powerhouse Russia and the quiet machinations of China in both South America and Africa should suggest to the average person that though power is easily derived from capital and development, at the end of the day the willpower and force of arms to accomplish an objective is often all that other nations will respect. America should be proactive in fighting these threats, without the need to maintain silence about what we are accomplishing in the low intensity conflicts in S. America and Africa. Interventions of at least 1,000 soldiers roughly double the probability of achieving a negotiated settlement between the government and rebels, and larger interventions can improve these odds still more — albeit at a diminishing rate of return.

Even such a small number as 1000 foreign advisors deployed in a low-intensity domestic conflict can produce an outcome more favorable to the deploying nation. (4)Drawing from recent history, the initial invasion of Afghanistan, which was accomplished using Green Beret military advisors and overwhelming military firepower, should be the model on which we striveto change the world for american benefit, successful LIC operations, consistent with US interests and laws, can advance US international goals such as the growth of freedom, democratic institutions, and free market economies. Indeed, the recent events in Libya, Syria, and Lebanon, were partially modelled on the successfully implemented initial events of Afghanistan. It can be argued that the plan only fell apart once the “regular” military stepped in and gave the Afghan radicals a force to mobilize against, turning a civil war into an occupation almost overnight, as “the one thing Afghanistan’s tribes seemed to hate more than each other was an invading army” (6) If the advisor model had been strictly adhered to, there would have been no large-scale mobilization of troops, and it can be argued that Afghanistan today would not be such a fractured and dangerous place. In Iraq, as well, though it is widely agreed that the evidence leading to the invasion was fabricated, the necessity of the regime change should not be debated.

The human rights abuses by Hussein against the Shia majority as well as the Kurdish people, including use of chemical weapons, should have been enough to convince the American people that our might must be put to use. >> Again, the implementation of the plans for the expansion of representative democracy and free market capitalism have fallen well short of the ideal. Primarily in the middle east and near east, the forces behind the opposition to building a stable form of democracy have not come from within but without, from Pakistani meddling and Iranian support respectively. (7) While it may be more politically palatable to the election seeking member of the Senate or Congress to simply use non-military measures against these state actors who have been supporting terrorism, the middle east will never see peace while neighboring nations feel the right to interfere in the rights of their neighbors. American blood and American treasure have both been wasted in tremendous quantities so far in poorly applied nation building without assaulting the root causes of the issues. The cost of war, the human cost, the cost in dollars, and the opportunity costs, are not to be underestimated. American isolationism is alive and well in many sectors of the political establishment, and for good reason.

However, the world will never see a true and long-lasting peace until recalcitrant states have been brought to heel by American power. Whether that power ends up primarily being economic and cultural or military power is exercised to preserve our nation’s interests is still a matter for discussion among the American populace. However, the American voting public cannot stand by any longer and allow our fellows across the globe suffer in fear, in poverty, and in chains. Lady liberty has long borne a torch for the oppressed, but it is time for her to pick up the sword, as well. If the mantle of an America ascendant is not grasped in time, authoritarian governments and non-state actors will seize the momentum behind global events, which will in time lead to only greater expenditures of American life to defend the values that our nation has long shepherded across the globe. American primacy will defend the rights of humanity across the world, leading to a greater prosperity and higher quality of life than has been known in any time in recorded history.