There are two clearly defined sides to this question. One side would like to see America take a state of neutrality when it comes to overseas intervention. This side includes the anti-war protestors and critics questioning the recent war on Iraq. They say that America should let other countries worry about their own problems, because Americans already have enough problems to agonize over. Since America is the only superpower left in the world they have a responsibility to keep the peace, which calls for them to play the role of the world’s police force. This leads to the other side of the question, where war-supporters argue that if America doesn’t step up to the plate to control evil tyrants, then who will?
In the past, there have been international organizations that have tried to promote world peace and patrol the world. For example, the League of Nations was a dismal failure and currently the United Nations is not much better. It’s hard to take seriously a federation of countries whose human rights commission is chaired by Libya and whose disarmament commission will soon be chaired by Iraq.
So who does that leave to be the world’s police force? Argentina? Bolivia? Cameroon? The answer is pretty obvious. It is the country with the most vibrant economy, the most passionate devotion to liberty, and the most powerful military. The only nation capable of incorporating all of the above requirements is the United States of America.
The United States is the only power that can handle a showdown in the Persian Gulf, mount the kind of force that is needed to protect Saudi Arabia, and deter a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. Do we really want that job? For the past fifty years, Americans were told that policing the world was a strategic and moral obligation. They were told that they were saving the world from communism and defending their own national security. Now with the defeat of communism, with the exception of China; is polici...