The US Military and its ability to act as "world policemen/people"?

Question

Just curious what is everyones take on this. Does the Us Military have what it takes to solve the worlds problems? Or should we go back to the isolationism policies of the early 1900's and solve our problems inside the borders first?

good answer Lancelot: thanks for the reply...i am not saying our president is bad. Maybe a clarification is needed. i am saying this:

Since the early 60's the US military has been geared to fighting the "cold war" yes it has been several years since the USSR crumbled:

When until the last 5 to 10 years have we changed our strategic and tactical outlook on war.

But, my question clearly states nothing of the president. But I can see the commander in chief aspect I served 8 years in Us Military

excellent debate....keep them coming. i might just extend this bad boy...good replies across the board

Answer 1

Not to be flippant, but neither. We can't go back to early twentieth century isolation, because our economy is inextricably mixed with Japan's and Canada's economies.

We can't solve the world's problems, because our army isn't big enough to do that, and because the American people emphatically don't want American empire-building as our foreign policy.

We need to first fix our ghastly intelligence gathering -- we're as blind as Oedipus. And we need to streamline our overseas troop commitments (this means getting out of Iraq) so we can concentrate on the great strategic need of the early 21st century --which is to stop and reverse proliferation.

Now get this, it's brutal and true: we can't win in Iraq, not now, not after Abu Ghriab and torture. Like Vietnam, it was a television, war, and we lost on the tube. 'nuff said.

Answer 2

1st to lancelot: Doing any number of things at once is one thing and doing them right ( at least some of them ) is an entirely different thing.
Of late , the world do not see the US as world policeman but more like a world Bully. And most of the time a failure in that too. I have seen people bragging in chat forums that ' the boys will kick some asses and will be back for christmas' in the case of Iraq.
How many years now?? And some of the boys came back covered in stars & stripes. A lot of the boys will not have legs to kick any asses in their life. ( All for what?? )
The US is good at creating a lot of problems recently in the world alone and then calling the international community to solve the problems they create. take the case of IRAQ. The UN said there were no WMDs and dont invade. The US went ahead and invaded anyway.They were doing it with the help of 'International Community' comprising mainly of UK and some merceneries from other postage stamp sized countries. ( And in UK/Australia/japan ... if the war alone is an issue in the next election , all their current govts are GOING TO GO OUT.
Now the US know it cannot solve the problem it created in Iraq . It now feels the need for help from the Other true International Community.
It is only a matter of time. The Bully is going to be thrown out of Iraq.
And about fixing problems within the border: For a start , what to do after, in the case of emergencies like katrina , EFFICIENTLY will be a good place to start.
Or think about the state of the economy. while the US is talking about sanctions all over the place , other countries are looking for ways to increase the trade and build their economy. And to see how isolated the US has become , just see that now the world economies are not going in to slowdown when the US is going in to slow down ( read recession if you like )

Answer 3

You would be surprised at how many Governments around the world like US policing the world. An the answer to your question is no we are not capable of doing the world's betting anymore because we are bogged down in Iraq, remember we were suppose to be in and out 1 2 3 . Now no government can trust us to hold up to our promise of protection, you see Japan conducting it's own war games and S. Korea having no part in the embargo.

Answer 4

Isolationism is never a good idea, especially when such a large part of our economy depends on other countries.

However, acting unilaterally (like Iraq) also is a bad idea...our government can not be the bully...we need to establish rapport with the governments of affected countries, and work together to a solution.

Not always the best way to get things done, nor the quickest, but in the long run, I think it is more beneficial to work cooperatively with others on big issues.

Answer 5

I am from Australia and it annoys me to no end that the USA government has to try and rule the world.Its very hypocritical that the USA can have nuclear bombs and WMD's yet it trys to Dictate to countrys such as IRAN that it cannot have nuclear energy or weapons,yet a place like Pakistan that sponsors Terrorism can have nukes pointed at India
.
If there was no American Arrogance i doubt there would have been alot of attacks against American interests

The problem with todays world is if you dont bow down to the American way of thinking you are labled as a Terrorist.

Iraq was a poor excuse for not Finding Bin Laden and is only going to bring your country more grief so its better to work within your own borders

Answer 6

The US military has gone wherever the President sends them, or in the old days where Congress sent it. They try to do what they are asked to do. When they are sent to the wrong place for the wrong reason, it is very difficult to succeed. Unfortunately for them and us, many recent Presidents have sent them on the wrong mission to accomplish what can't be done. Often they are sent to fight and deliberately been kept from winning by the very Presidents who sent them there. We need to honor and respect them better than that. To punish the Taliban in Afghanistan is something the military can do while also being able to believe what they are doing. To bring democracy to Iraq is not doable and hard to believe in. It is a mission doomed to fail for many reasons, and it only serves to demoralize and injure our troops as well as our citizens. We need to be very stingy in the use of our military, but when we use it it is best to send them in to succeed and for a very good and obvious reason. They are not created to solve the world's problems, they are there represent the values and will of our people. Don't isolate as this is not possible in the Global times we live in. Just don't waste them on someones wet dream.

Answer 7

I totally think that you guys should "go back to the isolationism policies of the early 1900's and solve our problems inside the borders first".
Look inward and fix your current problems (set and example for the rest of the world) and then look outward to see if you can help with the worlds problems.

Answer 8

Personally I would love to have our military home and guarding our boarders, but if the war is not fought where the terror began the terrorists will come here to finish what they started in the first place!

Answer 9

We can't. The world is different. America's national security depends on a global economy. Continued globalization is not only America's only hope it's Humanities. Progress requires change and it is the fear of change that is holding humanity back. It is natural for humans to fear change...as the old ways have kept us alive to this point...but for real progress, we're going to have to fight our natural tendency to fear change and adapt to a new and changing global world. There's no going back...a global world is our reality...let's deal with it together.

15th century China was the most advanced society on the planet at the time, but then they closed their borders and looked inward only and fell behind the times. To stay ahead requires the ability to adapt to change.

Answer 10

Why can't we do both??

It does not require and active military to solve our Border issues.

Heck, we could fight an additional war front if needed at this very moment. Problem you have is you only think of one thing at a time.. Our President can handle several issues at the same time!

Good Luck with that negative thought process