Skip to comments.Yes, We Are the World’s Policeman: U.S. troops are the greatest preservers of liberty & peace
Posted on 09/17/2013 7:09:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In his speech to the nation on Syria last week, the president twice emphasized that America is not the worlds policeman. According to polls, most Americans agree.
Unfortunately, however, relinquishing this role assures catastrophe both for the world and for America.
This is easy to demonstrate. Imagine that, because of the great financial and human price, the mayors and city councils of some major American cities decide that they no longer want to police their cities. Individuals simply have to protect themselves.
We all know what would happen: The worst human beings would terrorize these cities, and the loss of life would be far greater than before. But chaos would not long reign. The strongest thugs and their organizations would take over the cities.
That is what will happen to the world if the United States decides because of the financial expense and the loss of American troops not to be the worlds policeman. (I put the term in quotes because America never policed the whole world, nor is it feasible to do so. But Americas strength and willingness to use it has been the greatest force in history for liberty and world stability.)
This will be followed by the violent death of more and more innocent people around the world, and economic disruption and social chaos. Eventually the strongest meaning the most vile individuals and groups will dominate within countries and over entire regions.
There are two reasons why this would happen.
First, the world needs a policeman. The world in no way differs from cities needing police. Those who oppose Americas being the worlds policeman need at least to acknowledge that the world needs one.
Which leads to the second reason: If the United States is not that policeman, who or what will be?
At the present moment, these are the only possible alternatives to the United States:
a) No one
e) The United Nations
The first alternative would lead, as noted, to what having no police in an American city would lead to. Since at this time no country can do what America has done in policing the world, the world would likely divide into regions controlled in each case by tyrannical regimes or groups. China would dominate Asia; Russia would re-dominate the countries that were part of the former Soviet Union and the East European countries; Russia and a nuclear Iran would dominate the Middle East; and anti-American dictators would take over many Latin American countries.
In other words, (a) would lead to (b), (c), and (d).
Would that disturb those Americans from the Left to the libertarian Right who want America to stop being the worlds policeman?
Note well that Europe is not on the list. Europeans are preoccupied with one thing: being taken care of by the state.
As for (e), the United Nations, it is difficult to imagine anyone arguing that the United Nations would or could substitute for the United States in maintaining peace or liberty anywhere. The U.N. is only what the General Assembly, which is dominated by the Islamic nations, and the Security Council, which is morally paralyzed by Chinese and Russian vetoes, want it to be.
Americans are retreating into isolationism largely because of what they perceive as wasted American lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan. But this conclusion is unwarranted.
It is leaving not fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that will lead to failures in those countries.
Had we left Japan, what would have happened in that country and in Asia generally? Had we left South Korea, would it be the vibrant democracy, and economic power, that it is today or would it have become like the northern half of the Korean peninsula, the worlds largest concentration camp? Had we left Germany by 1950, what would have happened to Europe during the Cold War? We did leave Vietnam, and communists imposed a reign of terror there and committed genocide in Cambodia.
American troops around the globe are the greatest preservers of liberty and peace in the world.
To return to our original analogy of cities without police: Thinking that we can retreat from the world and avoid its subsequent violence and tyranny is like thinking that if the police go on strike in Chicago, the suburbs will remain peaceful and unaffected.
We have no choice but to be the worlds policeman. And we will eventually realize this but only after we and the world pay a terrible price.
In the meantime, the American defeat by Russia, Syria, and Iran last week means that the country that has been, for one hundred years, the greatest force for good is perilously close to abandoning that role.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His most recent book is Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph. He is the founder of Prager University
We cant even protect a dozen people at a secure naval installation on our own soil
100 percent correct!
I go crazy listening to libertarians liberals and other faux conservatives saying we are not.
The unasked question inpraegers analysis:
Does world respect and cooperation grow with us isolation?
bsolutely not. We are blamed even when we do nothing. Everyone knows who has the carriers.
Being honest on this point would make life better for all.
I thought the only reason for the military (or militia) was to provide for the common defense. That’s a long way from being the world’s policeman.
These foreign entanglements are wearing a little thin.
Anyone who has taken the most recent AT training could have seen this coming. The parameters of the threat matrix for home grown terrorists demands that civilians and military alike ignore behavior changes in groups of people who have in recent history been behind an overwhelming majority of homeland attacks and attempts.
I’m thinking our children aren’t cannon fodder for the swine of the world.
With all due respect to Dennis Prager, I am personally tired of watching our young people “sacrificed” for people who aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit, and who don’t appreciate the sacrifice at the end of the day. Then there’s the matter of all the spending of money we borrow from the Chinese on top of the human loss. The Brits learned in the 19th century that being the “World’s Cop” was a looser. We should not follow them. The ideas as to what constitutes “a threat” to our country need to be re-evalutated. There hasn’t been a war, in my opinion, since WWII that meets that test. Plus we didn’t accomplish anything in any of our wars since except spend money and loose our precious young men and women!
General Prager should stop flapping his gums, hike up his big boy pants and make his way to the middle east where he can play world cop on his own dime.
Muzzies do it all the time and I think its high time for the armchair generals to show us that they’re more than talk.
If the gloves came off? There'd be blood in the streets for a while. One side or the other would prevail. It is not a given that the thugs would win, but the entire cultural programming of 'letting the authorities take care of it' has left us with a populace less willing and less able to defend against thuggery.
Iran as a power which can function as an international enforcer? Please. Iran is a regional power, albeit in a region Prager has some pretty strong feelings about. Been rereading Anthony Sampson’s The Seven Sisters. It was written in 1975, but as a road map to how the US got this screwed up, it still has an awful lot to recommend it. If the U.S. can move toward more domestic energy production the inevitable question becomes why should the U.S. remain deeply engaged in places half way around the globe.
Who’s we? Prager not putting his life on the line on foreign soil to serve as the world’s policeman nor did he serve in the military when the US was at war in his youth. It is tiresome to hear so many people try to shame the nation into endless overseas commitments who have never taken up the burden themselves.
Policemen are paid with taxes. When we can start taxing Russia, China, Japan, Germany and the rest of the world to pay for our military, then I’ll pay attention to this poor analogy.
Sounds like the two neo-cons should merge into ‘Weekly Review.’
Pax Americana. Zero recently told us: 1. The war on terror is over, and, 2. We’ve joined up with al-Qaeda.
Well, we’re broke. We got oil. And we’re not stupid, so FUDP.
The only reason we’re able to do what we do on a global scale is that our dollar is still the world’s reserve currency; we can create dollars out of thin air at will to pay for it all.
If and when that changes, we’ll be lucky to be able to put food on the table, much less maintain scores of military bases around the world or have five warships sitting in wait to take out a rouge dictator.
At that point the argument of whether we should be the world’s policeman will be academic.
Because we did such a great job with Arab Spring. /s
Prayer says: First, the world needs a policeman. The world in no way differs from cities needing police. Those who oppose Americas being the worlds policeman need at least to acknowledge that the world needs one.
Prayer makes this assumption but who says this is the case?
What you mean “WE” civilian man?
I don’t agree with our kids,brothers and sisters being sent over to these forsaken lands to do street beats with terrible rules of engagement.
Police inside the United States are allowed to kill citizens with less scrutiny and rules than our military has to kill the enemy. I am not for this ‘winning the hearts and minds’ bull poop. Heck, they won’t even name the enemy!
If a war is in our interest and for the safety and protection of the United States, then go in and kill them, destroy them, bring them to their knees to the point we know they won’t be getting up to bother us for a long while. Let them busy themselves rebuilding their state. We sure the hell don’t need to!
Break all the damn pots and leave. If they are worth attacking, then that means they are the enemy and who gives a fiddlers fart if they ever get back what they lost. They won’t like us if we help them rebuild or not. Talk about bleeding hearts—that’s our Generals now.
No disrespect to our men and women in uniform but they have been doing a lousy job of protecting liberty and peace here at home. They are suppose to protect us from invasion, even unarmed ones, and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.
Prager, and all these guys, ask themselves, what’s best for Israel. And that’s what they think should do.
And they don’t think past that point.
When thugs take over cities and things get really bad, armed citizens will come forth and Vigilantes will clean things up, hang them from the street posts.
That is American history.
Of course that was when citizens were armed—something Obama is trying to cure.
He’s right, that’s been the case. As has been the case of losing the peace afterwards. See Yalta, see Korea, see Vietnam, and now, see Iraq.
The more America rots and decays on the domestic front... economically, culturally and morally... the less inclination I have in ANY foreign adventures. And lately, America has indeed been sliding into the sewer at a jaw-droppingly fast clip.
Israels enemies are fighting amongst each other(as God promised)- so what’s the problem?
The job of our troops is to kill people and break things.
The job of politicians and diplomats is to make sure they only have to do so when absolutely necessary in the national interest. Anything else is a waste of money on an ungrateful world * that in its entirety isn’t worth the bones and blood of a single sailor, soldier or airman.
Yes, we have been able to do such things as we did with Japan and Germany after WW2, that was then and this is now; we aren’t the only rich nation anymore.
* not that I mind seeing the Israelis getting a few weapons from time to time as they damn well will generally use ‘em on the people that need killin’ most.
On his radio show two weeks ago, Dennis Prager was beating the drums for a war with Syria.
As far as I can understand the theory, if we hand Syria over to al Qaeda we are screwing Iran.
Too deep for me.
In Syria we have muslim radicals killing muslim radicals. Our prayers have been answered! Why would we want to stop them? To give them time to become America haters like so many other muslims?
Let them kill each other while we deal with our own home bred killers.
show me where in the constitution we are granted to power to be the worlds policeman...
it is not there..
Be careful what you wish for. A country that could "protect" everyone from such a threat would be a country with an internal security system of which Beria or Himmler would be proud.
Freedom entails living with risk.
The People may want to end the welfare state, but no organized political force has set the end of socialist as a goal, so that's not going to happen.
What to do? Well, give up on being the world police force and move to strategic independence. We will become energy independent in time, Obama is only slowing the inevitable.
Strategic Independence would increase the cost of international trade. World trade has been subsidized by the American taxpayer at the final expense of the American worker as production has been sent off-shore. Taxpayers have subsidized big business, foreign and domestic. Time to end all subsidies to big business, domestic and foreign and make they face the true costs of international trade. It's time to face reality.
We need to focus on defending America and keep the capability to attack our attackers. If the Middle East blows up, that hurt China, not us. So, why are we in the Middle East?
Is it time for Strategic Independence?
We've been Team Saudi Arabia: World Police.
“I go crazy listening to...faux conservatives saying we are not.”
You are wrong here. Classic conservatism does not advocate an interventionalist foreign policy, especially one driven unilaterally by the president. Those asserting that we are not the world’s policeman are being more true to conservative ideology than you. Maybe you’re being the “faux” conservative and fail to realize it.
I don’t think we have any expectation of anonymity in world affairs.
We can basically take it to the world or they will bring it to us.
Even Jefferson tried everything to avoid war with the Islamic Barbary pirates and ultimately it was Marines that had to be sent to Tripoli to sack their bases.
We have never had alternatives to this.
There really are realistic plotted goals to destroy America that surpass well beyond what the Muslims were doing in the Mediterranean in the early 19th century.
Pulling the international covers over our heads and calling it “constitutional” does not get it done.
Our security is tied to engagement: economically, diplomatically, and yes militarily. Reagan was right. America has a rendezvous with destiny. We cannot evade it.
Lincoln was right at Gettysburg. We are the test of a global proposition.
The world knows who America is and what it is about. Its not a secret anymore. They will bring it to our shores.
Frankly, I am okay at a certain cynical level of waiting until something really painful happens because I know it will swamp isolationism when it does. But it is frustrating watching people jump from office towers to their deaths. I would rather avoid it.
But Ron Paul told me we should expect such from “engagement.” I’ve never believed that.
“Our security is tied to engagement: economically, diplomatically, and yes militarily.”
I don’t disagree with your response, however, I do draw a distinction between the United States advancing it’s interests vs. policing the world.
President Jefferson was addressing a direct threat to US shipping and commerce fron the Barbary Pirates (Libya). Contrast that with our recent Libya intervention which did not advance US interests one whit. We apparently intervened on behalf of European oil interests. These are the “police” actions that so many of us disagree with.
I’m no isolationist, but expect to see the US military used to advance clear-cut United States interests.