-
Even the Europeans Rethink the Welfare State
April 21, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare for Everyone Except Obama’s Appointees
March 8, 2013 | 3 comments
-
The Sensitive Saudis: They Want Democracy for Everyone Else
March 5, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Remember, There Is No Spending Problem!
February 26, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Another Useful Reminder that Communism was Loathsome
February 24, 2013 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wants endless war. He didn’t exactly say that. But that would be the effect of what he proposes.
We cannot be the world’s policeman, I know. Still, the world needs a policeman and who can it be if not the United States? We have to pick our moments, but where we can intervene, as we did successfully in Libya, we must - not alone, surely not alone, but in concert with others. Where you can do something, you must do something.
The U.S. remains the globe’s sole superpower. We “can” intervene anywhere and defeat any other nation. So why stop at Bosnia and Libya? How about Nigeria and Venezuela? Burma and Saudi Arabia? Cuba and Sri Lanka? All of the despotic Central Asian nations? A lot of African and Middle Eastern nations could benefit from a good old American occupation. Heck, North Korea probably doesn’t have workable and deliverable nuclear weapons. We could defeat them! Pakistan could use genuine liberation, and it doesn’t have any missiles with nukes that can hit America.
In short, if the standard is “where we can,” then there is no where, other than perhaps China and Russia, which are capable of hitting America with nukes, where we can’t. And in a world full of tragedy, oppression, and bloodshed—even democratic India suffers from paroxysms of violence from time to time—the opportunities for intervention are endless.
In fact, war is a poor humanitarian tool. Our ethnic Albanian allies in Kosovo behaved badly, as did the Croats, also backed by America. And it is a bit early to proclaim Libya a success.
Of course, the real problem is that Cohen doesn really mean “we” must intervene. Rather, “we” in the nation’s capital must send off other people, those who have joined the military to defend their nation, to conduct glorious crusades around the world. It is a lot easier to plot endless war when others will do the fighting.
Why do we have this wonderful military that you keep talking about if we don’t use it, Madeleine Albright famously asked Colin Powell? To protect America—its territory, people, and constitutional liberties. Not to police the world. Especially when doing so often leaves the U.S. less secure.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Doug Bandow
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/13/a-liberal-in-search-of-endless
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Dai Alanye | 12.13.11 @ 11:13AM
Perhaps Mr Bandow would prefer we hold a plebiscite within the armed forces to determine when and where to go to war.
I can understand that, but how do we weight the voting? Do the views of officers count for more than enlisted men? The Marines used to (informally) consider a Private First Class the equal of an Army Second Lieutenant -- how should that affect the voting? Do the votes of the "clean" services -- Navy and Air Force -- count for as much as the Crunchies and Mud Marines? Are Veterans to have a say? Spouses?
After we solve that, we need to decide whether those furriners on whose behalf we go to war are sufficiently nice, and if they meet politically correct standards in their struggles for self-liberation.
It's all so complex. Perhaps we should stick with the present method.
Kevin| 12.13.11 @ 11:14AM
Spot On!
ole meanie| 12.13.11 @ 11:25AM
We need to re-examine the premise behind our interventions. We assume that because a country is "undemocratic", this explains why its people are "oppressed" and backward; the thought seems to be that if we give them an opportunity for democracy, they will thrive and prosper. This view has it exactly reversed. Actually, the "oppressed people's" lack of a system of law, their lack of respect for ownership of property, their undue submission to oppressive religious and social practices, their illiteracy, their lack of economic understanding and productivity, are the reasons for their plight. They oppress each other. Military intervention cannot change this.
The attitude of many of our citizens is that the military, being an all-volunteer force, has signed on to accept whatever our nation chooses to use them for. And we use them badly when we send them on futile missions such as "nationbuilding" or regime change.
Zack| 12.13.11 @ 12:02PM
I agree that Bush had it backwards in his belief that all democracies will inevitably lead to stable societies. The reality is that the first step is an effective and fair system of law and property rights. From there, democracy can potentially take root and flourish. Look at places like South Korea or Renaissance Europe: they started with the rule of law, and democracy blossomed after a strong middle class developed.
The fact is that the US can actually impose a rule of law on a country through the military, but so far we've been pretty much unwilling to do so. Bush tried to use democracy as a panacea because he wasn't willing to have a real discussion about the costs of nation building.
Zack| 12.13.11 @ 12:02PM
I agree that Bush had it backwards in his belief that all democracies will inevitably lead to stable societies. The reality is that the first step is an effective and fair system of law and property rights. From there, democracy can potentially take root and flourish. Look at places like South Korea or Renaissance Europe: they started with the rule of law, and democracy blossomed after a strong middle class developed.
The fact is that the US can actually impose a rule of law on a country through the military, but so far we've been pretty much unwilling to do so. Bush tried to use democracy as a panacea because he wasn't willing to have a real discussion about the costs of nation building. case
Zack| 12.13.11 @ 11:53AM
I think it depends on what "can" means. Bandow's creating a strawman when he defines "can" to mean any country other than China and Russia. While I agree that we could theoretically intervene in any country other than potentially those two, we really can't intervene in every country where there is a need (certainly not all at once).
As an Army officer, I'm generally onboard with the idea that we should intervene where it makes sense. Obviously, there will be disagreements about where it makes sense, but I think we have to look at this more broadly than protecting our borders. Like it or not, we live in a globalized world, and we need to be involved globally to protect ourselves at home.
When evaluating whether we should intervene in a country, each of us makes a decision based on some combination (a) the egregiousness of the problem, (b) the ability of the US to do ameliorate the problem through military action (and whether non-military actions would be better suited), (c) the cost in blood and treasure, and (d) US interests involved. There are plenty of places where the first factor is satisfied, but a lot less where factors the rest are implicated.
Libya satisfied factors a and c (Gaddafi was a monster and it was pretty low risk), but was debatable in terms of b and d (did we really make anything better? and what were the US interests at stake?). Places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela would be way more costly to intervene than it is worthwhile to. Places like Burma and Sri Lanka (and most of Africa) just don't matter enough to make it worthwhile.
Red Phillips | 12.13.11 @ 1:43PM
Zack, where is playing the "world's policman" (Cohen's words) in the Constitution you (and I at one time) swore to uphold?
Zack| 12.13.11 @ 3:07PM
I don't recall saying anything about being the world's policeman. I said each intervention is a case-by-case analysis and that Bandow is over-simplifying the argument he critiques.
Is your position that the Constitution prohibits the US from making war abroad?