Question: In light of our sending troops into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Liberia (we still have troops in Korea), how do you perceive the role of America in the World? Are we our brothers" keeper? Should we ignore "hot spots"? What role should terrorism play in how we react? Is there a viable alternative to direct involvement, and, if so, what?.
Currently, the United States has stationed military forces in about 130 countries, fighting in some of them, peacekeeping in others and training foreign militaries in others.
There are 155 combat battalions in the U.S. Army. Before October 2001, only 17 of these were deployed on active combat service, presumably in Kosovo and a few other hot spots. Today that figure stands at 98 combat battalions deployed in active areas. This is a very high number to sustain over a long term, which is why, in addition to the 225,000 servicemen deployed in combat and peacekeeping missions abroad, we have sent an additional 136,000 troops from the national guard and reserves. Meanwhile, U.S. Army generals are asking for more troops to be deployed to Iraq, and the Pentagon has recently diverted three warships to the coast of Liberia.
Condoleezza Rice, the current U.S. national security advisor, made a statement concerning the army at that time: "It is not a civilian police force, it is not a political referee, and it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society." But September 11 changed US foreign policy radically, and stabilizing overseas countries is now viewed as a matter of national security.
So what role should we take in the future? What are the rules for intervention, and who should be the enforcing party? Should the United States agree to whatever is proposed by the international community? I believe there are five clear and distinct cases when the United Nations could authorize a state to intervene: .
- When, as in Rwanda or Bosnia, ethnic cleansing and mass killing threaten large numbers of civilians and a state is unwilling or unable to stop it;.
