Global Police?

[Adam]

From another thread:

It is interesting to note however, that the possibility of such a hypothetical is the prime reason the US is the protector of the world and most contries accept (WANT) it to be. American dominance is what allows our allies the luxury of disarming.


I seem to recall that it was George Bush Senior who introduced the term "global police". He was always, without reason or prompting, throwing into his speaches things like "We don't want to become the world's global police force...", without anyone else ever suggestion the matter in the first place, just so he could get the concept out there in the public arena, and make it look like it was his government shouldering an unwanted yet necessary responsibility.

What say you? Is the USA our global police force?

[russ_watters]

Strange this poll didn't get more votes (bump).

[Jonathan]

Well, 3 to one, favor the first. The (four) people have spoken! [:D]

[russ_watters]

Though not many have responded, I am nevertheless surprised by the distribution.

[Jonathan]

How could someone have voted other, what else is there?

[Njorl]

There is no global police. That is good. Until nations have more mutual implicit trust and understanding there is no place for a global police force. At best, the US is one global citizen (admittedly the toughest global citizen) that can be called upon to form a "posse" as needed. At worst, it can be part of a global "vigilante gang".

Policing requires consent of the policed and careful delineation of police powers. The policed endow the police with power to maintain a level of society that is beneficial. True police power can not be arrogated.

Njorl

[kat]

I said other..because I'm not sure who your referring to when you say "our" and because I don't thin the U.S. is "the" global police..but it certainly can act with other as a regional police when it is set up to do so.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Njorl
There is no global police. IMO, the US is the de facto global police. When acting under the auspices of the UN or NATO, they come very close to being an official global police force. Policing requires consent of the policed... Ehh, that gets a little fuzzy. I'm not sure anyone has ever really consented to being arrested. However, a lot of people did join the UN. Maybe that is consent.

[Jonathan]

I think it requires the consent of the majority of the policed and this must be prior to any charges, arrests, or accusations. I think a global vigilante gang that included the US would undoubtably be dominated by the US, thereby making it close enough for my definition (though it's far too vague to be put into words).

[HAVOC451]

Originally posted by russ_watters
IMO, the US is the de facto global police. When acting under the auspices of the UN or NATO, they come very close to being an official global police force.

I agree that this is indeed the case. The biggest reason that this is true is that nobody else (with limited exceptions for England, France, and to a lesser degree Russia)has the ability to project power anywhere in the world in mere hours.

My beef with this "fact" is the cost.
We cannot solve all the problems, drive out all the despots, or hunt down all the terrorists on our own. We are too small and poor a country to rid the world of evil doers. Our bridges are crumbling, our rail system is slow and fragile, our highways are choked with traffic and strewn with potholes. Fire and Police departments are under staffed, Schools are over crowded and in disrepair. Higher education has become financially out of reach for much of the citizenry. Thousands of trauma care and emergency rooms have closed.

The cost of striding about the world as the one remaining superpower is carved directly from the health of our society.