You here it a lot now. In fact you've heard a lot over the last 20 years. The US should stop playing 'World Police' and intervening in every problem. Only one problem with that. The US hasn't been playing 'World Police' over the last 20 years and only has intervened a few times. Though I don't expect many here in the US to understand this. The amount of information about what's happening in the rest of the world rarely gets to the average American. They don't hear about most of the conflicts happening around to world, except in passing. And they rarely hear about UN and other Peacekeeping missions when something goes horribly wrong.
Will stating this on another blog someone responded with a Wikipedia Link about US Military Operations. It's interesting to look at all the interventions over the last 20 years. If you take out Iraq and the problems the US have had there over the last 20 years, peacekeeping and military operations in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia (which I consider on Meta-Problem) and the Invasion of Afghanistan (a response to a direct attack by an organization that was deeply involved with the ruling Taliban) the US really hasn't done much in the way of 'Intervention'. In fact most of the military operations were aimed at non-intervention. Most involved the evacuation of US citizens, reinforcing US embassies or giving limited support to other nations intervening. There are the cases when the US either bombed or launched cruise missiles at a group or country. Though wouldn't those be examples of the US trying to do everything BUT intervene with ground forces? Kind of like a Cop getting a call of a robbery-in-progress, driving up to the location, firing random shots into the building, then driving off to go get coffee w/o going in and seeing if he hit anything. And when the US does intervene they do it for a very short time and immediately look for someone else to take over the mission. Not exactly a sterling example of leadership.
The US is now trying to get Uganda to send more troops into Somalia, so the US doesn't have to get involved. There is already 7,000 AU troops there, but the most they can do is hold between 1/3 to 1/2 of Mogadishu at any given time. This isn't the first time the US has asked a Somali neighbor to intervene. Somalia was invaded twice by Ethiopia in the last 5 years.
Americans, even those who do want to do more globally, live in a fantasy world were 600 US Soldiers or Marines is a 'major commitment'. Instead 5 times that many is nothing more then an empty show of force. Technology simply doesn't give the US enough leverage to make up the difference. Especially when the US insists on deploying inadequately equipped Light Infantry forces. On top of this is the insane notion of deploying said under-sized and under-equipped can accomplish even the most complex tasks in less then 6 months. Nor does the 'full might' of the US Air Force or Navy have any impact on the majority of military missions. They usually are nothing other then transport. Something the USAF in particular loaths to do (because the longer they can keep ground forces away the more sorties they can fly, thus legitamizing there 'budget share').
I'm not say the US has to litterally intervene in every circumstance. But you can't complain about others cutting back their forces, of 'not doing enough' when you yourself expect a place of privedge and expect to tell others what to do and how to do it. All while cutting back your own forces and cherrypicking the missions you actually do. Especially when you're ignorant of what is going on in the rest of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment