Why the United States Polices the World: A Discussion on National Responsibility

The question of whether the United States should be the primary force in maintaining global security and order is not new. Some argue that the U.S. should maintain this role due to the lack of an alternative, while others contend that it is an immoral and unsustainable practice. This article will delve into the reasons behind the U.S. role in world policing and explore the implications of this policy.

Domination or Leadership?

The United States is often seen as a dominant force in international affairs, similar to ancient Rome in its heyday. Some argue that U.S. global policing is necessary because no one else is willing or able to do the job. However, others view this as an immoral stance, pointing out that the U.S. often sells weapons to countries it has started wars with, and engages in practices that are deeply troubling.

The Tyranny of Bullies

Bullies often seek to dominate not because they are needed, but because they enjoy it. In the case of the U.S., many argue that its global policing is a form of dominance rather than a genuine attempt to promote stability. The article quotes a line from a fictional Roman general: 'Like Rome, it is a stretch to far and is rotting at home. It will fall just like Rome did.' This highlights the potential risks and inherent vulnerabilities of overextension and excessive global involvement.

Public Opinion and Financial Burden

Public sentiment in the United States against its global policing role is strong. Many Americans question why their tax dollars are being used to maintain global peace and security when their own government is plagued by issues such as alcoholism, drug addiction, and frequent school shootings. This raises the point that the American people did not vote for this policy and are questioning the allocation of their tax funds.

The article suggests that if the U.S. were to cease its global policing role, there would be no immediate alternative. The question then becomes: who would step in to maintain world order? This poses an ethical dilemma, as the U.S. is often perceived as a pariah due to its involvement in conflicts for personal gain.

Alternatives and Possibilities

Some suggest that another country could take over this role. However, this option is daunting in practice. For instance, it is asked what country would be willing and capable to ensure free maritime commerce and economically isolate warlords. This highlights the lack of clear alternatives and the complex nature of global security.

The argument is made that the U.S. is involved in global conflicts when it believes there might be something in it for them, such as economic or political gains. This perspective raises questions about the true motives behind U.S. foreign policy and the ethical implications of such actions.

In conclusion, while the United States plays a significant role in global policing, the implications of this role are complex and controversial. The lack of an alternative to U.S. involvement raises important questions about national responsibility, ethical considerations, and the long-term sustainability of current policies.

This article aims to provide a critical examination of U.S. global policing, inviting readers to reflect on the reasons behind this policy and the potential consequences of its continuation or change.

Keywords: United States global policing, United Nations responsibilities, American foreign policy, global security, world order