A Policing and political Military

A Policing and political Military

Should the United State’s Military be used as a political and policing force in the global arena? This question of when and when not to use military force has been a major topic of debate for every president since the U.S. was established in 1776. The facts of the issues are that the United State’s military has no other option than to be a political machine and a policing force in the world.

The U.S. is the supreme force in the entire world. The cold war is over and peace must be kept. With great power comes great responsibility and the U.S. must preserve peace and defend democracy. In an article written by Richard Falk, “The president mentioned that past rivalries among states arose because of their efforts to compete with one another, but insisted that the future will be different because of American military superiority: ‘America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.’” (web). Falk, in this statement is referring to the arms buildup of wars such as World War I. In order for the U.S to maintain peace and democracy throughout the world, it needs to be anti-isolationist and pro-usage of military power, whether the military be used as a political force or a policing force.

First of all, the United State’s occupation in foreign soil prevents war. This is a political factor which helps keeps the peace in the two fronts which a major war might occur, such as in Europe and Asia. In that case, the U.S. deploys troops to bases stationed in Europe and Japan. Aside from these military instillations the U.S. also deploys aircraft carriers around the world as a political device and deterrent. A U.S. aircraft carrier off the coast of a foreign country signifies the might of American military power. Along with this, the U.S. deploys stealth bombers around the world, and this too is used as a political device that represents the strength of American military supremacy. If it was not for these political forces being used by the military, countries might be tempted to become militarily aggressive towards other countries. The United States presence in Asia prevents war from breaking out. For this necessity of American troops around the globe, the U.S. has been labeled global cop. Nicholas Kristof suggests in his 1995 article in New York Times that the pentagon and almost all countries in Asia desperately want American bases to remain, fearing if they depart that North Korea and China might become militarily adventurous (web). “The other argument often made for the bases is that they not only protect Japan, but also protect against Japan (Kristof web). The reason for U.S. presence in Japan to protect against Japan is a very defendable position. If the U.S. were to pull out, Japan would be compelled to re-arm and therefore become a threat once more, not only to the U.S but to the world. The initial reason for the United State’s presence in Europe was to protect against the Soviet Union during the cold war. However, the U.S. had a second and longer term motive for being present there.

In Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was an instrument of “dual containment.” While keeping the Soviet Union at arm’s length, NATO also locked Germany into a restraining embrace, and for the same purpose’ to prevent either from overturning the existing political order on the European continent. The Germans came to accept and appreciate the arrangement. It relieved them if the burden of defending themselves while at the same time dissipating the cloud of suspicion that would otherwise have enveloped them. Within the Atlantic alliance, therefore, the United States functioned as a buffer among parties with no cause for conflict but with historical reasons for mistrust. The American presence reassured each NATO member that the others harbored no aggressive intentions (Mandelbaum web).

The U.S. is in the business of keeping Democracy. Ever since President Roosevelt and his big stick policy, America has been determined to influence the world in the way of democracy. America believes that dictatorships and communism are wrong and if left unattended and unpunished, they will bring chaos to the world. Therefore, the U.S. has adopted the responsibility of keeping the world safe for democracy to flourish. On page seven, the National Security Strategy explains that in the war on terrorism, “we are ultimately fighting for our democratic values and way of life.” Since the cold war there have been several cases where military intervention was used for the political purpose of preserving democracy. Grenada was ordered to be invaded in October 1983 (Haass 25). Grenada was a small island in the Caribbean. There, 600 American medical students were believed to be endangered by the unstable government. The military action taken on the outside was aimed at rescuing the endangered Americans. On the inside, however, there was an underlying political motivation. “The motivation behind the use of force seems more a result of perceived opportunity: to replace a government friendly toward Cuba and the Soviet Union with one more pro-Western and democratic [. . .]” (Haass 25). The finest example of the U.S. military being used for the political purpose of preserving democracy was in the Gulf War. On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait (Haass 32). Through a well-planned out attack on Iraq, the U.S. was able to drive out Iraq and liberate Kuwait. This was done through extensive bombing by the U.S. Air Force followed by a massive infantry maneuver executed by the U.S. Army. “The objectives of operation Desert Shield was: Kuwait’s liberation; the restoration of Kuwait’s government; the security and stability of Saudi Arabia and the entire Gulf region; and the protection of U.S citizens” (Haass 32). Operation Desert Shield was political in the sense that it freed Kuwait from Iraq’s dictatorship. The second objective of the operation was to restore Kuwait’s government. This was done for the purpose of restoring democracy in the country.

On the other hand, many people believe that the U.S. should limit its use of military force; using the military for political purposes and policing issues is wrong. These people also believe that the U.S. military should only be used in times of declared war against a state or states. A declared war is when the U.S congress passes a bill declaring war against a nation or nations. These people are ignorant in their beliefs. They are not aware of the bigger picture and believe what they do because they do not know all the facts. How can a country so large and so powerful merely use its military only in times of declared war? There is a bigger picture, and a larger spectrum that must be taken into consideration. However, in order to understand the pros of using the military as a political and policing force, one must recognize and be aware of the cons. Many people believe that since the U.S. is no longer in the Cold War Era, these European and Asian states no longer need the U.S. to be present there; the U.S. is wasting its money and time being there. “It is egotistical for Americans to believe that the United States has done Japan a favor by defending it all these years by stationing its forces within the country. U.S. forces in Japan numbered 260,000 during the 1950s, 47,000 in 1990, and today stand at 37,000. Whenever more American soldiers leave, the Japanese see it as more good news” (web). This was implied by Morihiro Hosokawa in his article out of a July 1998 issue of “Foreign Affairs”. However, it is very important to note who Hosokawa is; from 1992 to 1993, he was the Prime Minister of Japan. It would be unintelligent to say that the U.S. is no longer needed in Japan and in Asia. As pointed out before, America is vital in the stability of the region. Without America present in Asia, “an invasion by China of Taiwan, for example, would send shock waves through all of Asia” (Kristof web). Along with this belief that the U.S. is no longer needed overseas, many people believe that the affairs of other countries throughout the globe are not the business of the United States. They believe the U.S. has no right to interfere with these countries. These people are also ill-informed in their beliefs. They are only thinking of the smaller picture and do not conceive the bigger one. In regards to the operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina (which was an operation to preserve democracy in the country), “Opinion polls show most Americans oppose U.S military intervention in such crises because they do not believe the crises affect national interests” (Landay web). To the untrained eye, the choice of intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina might not seem to affect national interests; nevertheless, there is an underlying cause for the intervention. The principal basis for the involvement that most people do not see in such cases is the support of democracy.

With all these pros for the use of a political and policing force, there is one position that cannot be weighed down by a con. In a new era of global terrorism conventional war cannot be waged on terrorism itself, because it runs rampant in every country in the world. The use of force must and will be used outside of declared war. The need for Special Forces will be greater because terrorism is such a large, yet small target. Rather than fighting against an enemy like China, the U.S. can represent a termite killer and the terrorists are the termites. Therefore, the military must be used outside of conventional warfare in order to lessen the threats of terrorists. The United States Air Force will play a very important role in the war on terrorism. “The USAF could be employed for either pre-emptive or preventive strikes against terrorist or state-sponsored sites that foment terror (such as deep underground facilities where weapons of mass destruction might be produced)” (Lesser et al. 79).

President Bush once said that the United States is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. The United States will stop at nothing to accomplish its goals of peace and freedom for democracy. The U.S. has taken on the responsibility of global cop and rightfully so. No one in the world rivals the pure power of the United States. If not for the U.S taking on such tasks of peace and democracy, then who will do the job? No one, not a country in the world would be safe if the U.S. reverted back to its isolationist days of World War I and World War II. The U.S. is the protector of peace, defender of freedom, and savior of democracy for the entire world.

Bibliography:

Works Cited

Falk, Richard. “The New Bush Doctrine.” Nation 275.3

(2002):web. Academic Search Elite EBSCOhost. Cameron Univ. Lib., Lawton, OK. 10 October. 2002.

Haass, Richard N. Rev. ed. Intervention: The Use of

American Military Force In thePost-Cold War World. 1994. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999.

Hosokawa, Morihiro. “Are U.S. Troops In Japan Needed?”

Foreign Affairs 77.4 (1998) : web. Academic Search Elite EBSCOhost. Cameron Univ. Lib., Lawton, OK. 10 October. 2002.

Kristof, Nicholas D. “American Troops As Cops of Asia.”

New York Times 3 December. 1995, sec.L: 14. Academic Search Elite EBSCOhost. Cameron Univ. Lib., Lawton, OK. 10 October. 2002.

Landay, Jonathan S. “Pentagon’s Indentity Crisis Over It’s

Role As Global Cop.” Christian Science Monitor 88:61 (1996): 3. Academic Search Elite EBSCOhost. Cameron Univ. Lib., Lawton, OK. 10 October. 2002.

Lesser, Ian O., et al., eds. Countering the New

Terrorism. Santa Monica: RAND, 1999.

Mandelbaum, Michael. “The Inadequacy of American Power.”

Foreign Affairs 81:5 (2002): 61. Academic Search Elite EBSCOhost. Cameron Univ. Lib., Lawton, OK. 10 October. 2002.

United States. White House. National Security Strategy.

2002. 11 November 2002

.