By Examples From Different Decades Since 1950, It Is Clear That The International Policing Role And Strategy Of The United States Was Once Essential, But Should Be Discarded As Ineffective And Counterproductive.

America as the World’s Police

As one of the main aim of a superpower, the United States has presumed the part of world’s policemen. Referring to a moral duty to maintain freedom and democracy all over the world, America takes part in external battles and exerts unparalleled global power. Ullman (2018) says that the word ‘world’s policeman’ triggers different reactions though almost no one denies that police are needed. This is mainly because no country has ever taken the position of being the world’s police or elected by a majority. Like other nations before it, the United States just assumed the role of upholding global law enforcement and carried it in its personal self-interest (Beckley, 2018). This began during the Cold War, which offered the United States a good reason to assume the world’s policeman role. Through the use of examples from different decades since 1950, it is clear that the international policing role and strategy of the United States was once essential, but should be discarded as ineffective and counterproductive.

First, during the cold war, the world was bipolar with two military giants which were competing – America and the Soviet Union. The America associates were weak comparatively since they were still recuperating and upgrading their economies after the World War II, due to this U.S required to be ubiquitous everywhere in the world to retain Soviet imperialism in check since security was perceived as a useless game: again by one side was a proportionate defeat by the other (Ullman, 2018).  Secondly, in 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the U.S saw this as a test of its willingness to use the military force. The actions taken by the United States and its associates suggested that to the international community that the U.S had the will and capability to respond to severe aggression and some other threats to international order. 

Recently, according to Russett, (2018), the United States took part in the cooling of the Syrian war with the intervention of the U.S military, which was authorized by Congress. They pointed security reason as the reason for bombing Syria, but no one considers that Assad threatened Americans. He never said it or took such actions. Equally, the U.S rule for many years now it has been providing weapons to ruthless and unethical kingdoms in the Arab states and autocrats in Asia and Latin America. Most of the time, when these governments want to repress its population, it applies the types of equipment made by the United States. This selective outrage is not a true agent or a retaliator of sufferers of prejudice. It is just a global hamhanded hegemon, who has autonomous geopolitical and economic benefits that control what it does in any situation (Andrade, 2016).

America was not appointed by anybody to be the world’s policeman, and by taking this role, the government destabilizes the morals that it purports to defend like privacy, liberty, impartiality, and even harmony. The attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan left many people dead, most who were seriously injured, and left unethical authoritarian governments in control of the societal remains. Although this is the case, the law of accidental outcomes cannot be cancelled, and the threat cannot be compared to the interventions that begin modesty since no one knows what is on the other side which is comprised of Iran and Russia (Russett, 2018).

In conclusion, assuming the role of world policeman affects other conflicts of other people, and a self-proclaimed leader leads to bitterness and a desire for vengeance, which may lead to further tensions. No person loves an intimidator, particularly if it is an arrogant superpower equipped with weapons of mass destruction.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *