Though the standoff between China and the US has had a resolution, it has left serious and long-overdue inquiries, which encompass whether the United States ought to police the entire world. As long as America will keep on policing the world, there will at all times be an anticipation of involvements such as violent disagreements, as well as warfare (Bremmer 26-31). Though the majority of the residents believe that America has a lot of domestic problems to handle rather than engaging in international challenges, the foreign policy institutions, the politicians, and scholars to mention a few are hooked to the notion that the United States should keep on policing the world. There is a notion that America is the only country that can deal excellently with such things as the war in Persia, satisfy the level of force required to safeguard Saudi Arabia, and prevent a calamity in Taiwan.
Support and Opposition
The supporters of the affirmation that America ought to police the world establish that if the United States stops keeping watch over the warring regions such as the Middle East that have promoted terrorism, the US will definitely have a target behind it, which would even execute attacks. ISIS has evidently indicated that they can kill whichever American they want, if given a chance. Something that seems endless despite the fact that the US can go out of their way. For the US to stop policing the entire globe, it would be like creating a chance for another attack similar to 9/11, and permitting the propagation of terrorism (Cao, Lai, and Zhao 40-49).
On the contrary, the opponents declare that it is evident that no nation can police the world unless they fix the problems in their country (Bremmer 27-29). In which manner will the US police the entire globe when its about 49 million residents remain in poverty? Approximately 16 million of the population represents children. On this note, the United States ought to put efforts id addressing its own challenges prior to attempting to police other nations; that is, it should care about the problems in America before anywhere else.
More affirmations in support declare that saying that it is not the concern of the US to attack the countries it disagrees with does not signify that that should be applied in the justification of terrorism. It is the responsibility of America, being the superpower, to defend both the domestic and global interests (Cao et al. 40-43). The financing of terrorism, defiance of longstanding agreements and regulations, cruel repression of democratic progress, and territorial hostility lead to international insecurity. On this note, the United States ought to defend other nations by acting with the intention of promoting peace and independence across the globe.
The opponents further assert that America should not think that it can babysit other countries and should use that time to address its domestic woes (Mass 32-39). Keeping watch over the world signifies that a huge amount will be used in the mission. Unemployment across the globe has reached worrying levels and strongly associated is escalating criminal activities. Policing other nations signifies a huge military and more warfare cases to control hostility overseas. The US should instead use the money to play a major function in operating to resolve issues across the globe by joining hands with other global partners.
Both the opponents and supporters concur that what is most significant is a foreign policy that is correct, which is not extremely pushy, quiescent, or influential but careful not to tire out oneself in the pursuit of healing the crippled society. The United States normally finds itself currently in a post-Cold War international order under enormous pressure (Schadlow 501-515). For America, the bad encounter of the warfare in such countries as Afghanistan and Iraq has created an intense unwillingness to get involved with foreign wars, with the perception that such operations will result in negative impacts such as killings for other tactical benefits. One outcome is that hostile regimes appear to believe that they can attain their selfish aims devoid of fearing a powerful reaction by the United States. Some of the traditionally powerful nations such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are progressively deviating from being safe as they used to be.
In which manner should the president of the US travel across hostile nations? In which way can the American forces enact some international standards, prevent adversaries, and cheer up friends devoid of shifting off the course with respect to international priorities and national concerns? How can the United States carry out a successful foreign policy that ensures that terror is eradicated? With issues of reinstating order in regions assumed to be beyond liberation, there is no need of the application of foreign policy but the policing of such nations, which has led to stunning and nearly unanticipated outcomes. Anarchy and criminal activities are normally inseparably associated, in a developmental succession. The most pressing objective of the American foreign policy in the course of time ought to be the elimination of disorder across the globe (Schadlow 505-510). There is therefore the need to place police officers on the streets as this could generate a sense of presence, enforce societal standards, and serve the concerns of all. This raises the need to prevent criminal activities, not countering it, and thwarting nations from turning into hubs of crime.
One approach would be requiring the United States to raise military expenses to about five percent of GDP. This method would intensely punish contravention of geopolitical standards, for instance, chemical artillery, through quick and unerringly targeting the executors of the attacks (presuming the incarceration of the criminals). Nevertheless, stress has been on short, mission-detailed, disciplinary policing endeavors, and not open-ended tasks with the intention of saving broken nations. The United States has resided in an orderly situation for a long time and this has made the nation turn self-complacent with respect to the retention of the status quo (Anholt 296-304). This could elucidate why America has disregarded things that support such an orderly condition, for example, dedication to international security and readiness to intervene in national crises to obtain collaborators. Nonetheless, just like the case of America, police officers only follow the beat, assure good, protect the tempted, and penalize the wicked.
Although most of the residents consider that America has many internal problems to handle rather than taking part in international challenges, the foreign policy bodies and the politicians are passionate to the view that the United States should carry on policing the world. The supporters of the declaration that America ought to police the world ascertain that if the United States stops policing the warring regions, it will certainly have a target behind it, which would even attack it. In contrast, the opponents claim that America should not think that it can babysit other countries and should employ that time to tackle its domestic afflictions. Finally, it is clear that America ought to police the world.
Anholt, Simon. “Anholt nation brands index: How does the world see America?” Journal of Advertising Research 45.3 (2005): 296-304.
The author gauges the strength and influence of America through an evaluation of ten nations. America has been posing great influence across the globe and efforts ought to be made to enhance is reputation.
Bremmer, Ian. “What does America stand for?” Time 185.20 (2015): 26-31.
The author explains the controversy that continued support of the US presidency ought to be an enticement for the United States government to better the foreign policy and recognizes war and terrorism. The close of the Cold war in conjunction with the strategies of Presidents Clinton and Bush propelled America to become a superpower.
Cao, Liqun, Yung-Lien Lai, and Ruohui Zhao. “Shades of blue: Confidence in the police in the world.” Journal of Criminal Justice 40.1 (2012): 40-49.
The kind of regime is significant in creating assurance in the government. Moreover, the regime should seek ways of enhancing effectiveness with the purpose of obtain the backing of citizens.
Mass, Warren. “The case for noninterventionism: The term ‘isolationist’ is slung like a curse in today’s conservative circles at those who don’t want America to police the world. But it’s interventionists who cause wars.” The New American 30.21 (2014): 32-39.