Should the US always serve as the savior in global politics?

    In August, the biggest talk of every news station in America was the removal of US troops in Afghanistan as well as the effects it had on the landscape of international politics. While I am definitely not saying the strategy of exiting Afghanistan was executed well, should the US have even been there for as long as they were in the first place? I am all for global peace and having no threats to the well-being of the planet, but is it the US’s job to always be the savior? I understand that the US is a wealthy nation with a strong military, so the narrative is always that the US can almost “save the world” like a Superman-esque figure. One thing with the Afghanistan debate on how or when the US should have pulled out of there was interesting to me. In Nicholas Grossman’s article Every Option in Afghanistan Was Bad, he quotes on a similar case in the Middle East a couple of years back, “We got September 11th and ended up back in. Similarly, the United States withdrew from Iraq in 2011, only for ISIS to arise and much of the Iraqi military to fold, leading to American forces returning in 2014” (Grossman, 4). Being that America was in Iraq for years and spent billions of dollars as well as numerous soldiers lives to try to preserve world peace it makes it seem useless as a terrorist group was able to take over Iraq in three years. The more of the article that I read, the more I questioned if all of this burden should be placed on America to preserve the world all of the time? 

    One connection that my mind made to this dilemma is the movie Gladiator. It is a movie about the Roman Empire where in the beginning of the movie Rome fights all kind of wars in foreign land, yet the current emperor tells the commander of the armed forces that Rome is not in good hands as it should be a republic and for the people in its own land rather than to always be in some foreign dispute. I drew this similarity to the US, which according to Lecture 11, more than 40 nations host US troops or US bases. Since it can be argued that the US has many similar qualities to that of an empire, is it ideal to be as militaristic as the US is all the time? Being that the US can not physically put enough troops across the world to protect every area from terrorism, I believe that the US should focus not be as engaged in conflicts such as the current Middle Eastern conflicts. 


Comments

  1. Annabelle VeithDecember 10, 2021 at 12:16 PM

    This bloc post contains a lot of interesting questions that dissect the United States' military and foreign affairs. I think it's important to ask why the United States feels the need to interject themselves in so many conflicts that might not entirely affect the American public? Especially in terms of justifying their perpetrated violence. Is it a way to exude dominance to other nations? A way to saturate the truth of internal conflicts? I'd be interested to hear what your take is on that question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Austin W.December 14, 2021 at 11:19 AM

      I think their logic is to assert dominance, but I do not think they need to do so as much as they do. Every nation knows America has a strong military, so I do not think we need to prove that as much as we do.

      Delete
  2. Eli WebbDecember 14, 2021 at 11:17 AM

    Very interesting blog post, Austin. A simple answer to your question on whether or not the US should always serve as savior is no, but of course it is more complicated than that. If you look at it, the US should not have been in Afghanistan for as long as they were, but now we think the treatment of women is horrible there and should be still there, showing we did nothing in our years prior. Should the US interfere with the maltreatment of muslims in China? Well they aren't sending diplomats which is huge (this last line was sarcastic). In all seriousness, people need to be saved across the world, and the US is the only thing powerful enough to save them. Yet, lots of times the US messes it up, and sometimes makes it even worse. It is very complicated, and I think you made some good points. But at the end of the say, does US want to use its power for others? They should...to an extent, in my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Austin W.December 14, 2021 at 11:21 AM

      I agree partially. I think that the US is powerful enough to fight for rights across the world. However, there are instances in which the US doesn't have the best human rights in our own nation. Also, in just about every nation there are human rights being abused. The question lies where does the US draw the line? It is then tricky, as the US will be fighting for some rights but not others.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

  Thomas White     Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, is typically taught as law and inherent to global politics. Often, the theory is misconstrued, something that I myself never fully understood. It is not just that the world will be destroyed if there is another nuclear war; a nuclear war cannot happen due to the resulting chaos. This is typically not emphasized when discussing this theory, as the view gives the impression that the destruction is more key, not the actual peace that results from it. In some ways, this is dangerous, as it misconstrues how people view this idea, and it clouds what should be asked; does the atomic weapon protects us all?     MAD is typically seen in many global theories and politics as an inherent truth, but some believe it should not be considered a fact. There has only been one true international affair that the concept of MAD has acted in, which was the Cold War. There was peace in their states, created by both the USSR and the USA having nuclear w
Read more

Terrorism

  Thomas White Professor Shirk International Politics 11-29-2021 Personal Experience with Terrorism     Terrorism is the greatest threat to immediate security in the 21st century. Defined by the FBI as two different concepts, there is both international and domestic terrorism. In class, international terrorism was obviously discussed more, and that is something that most in the US think less about, both because it less often affects their daily lives and also because the US government does not want to draw attention to actions they take that may be considered international terrorism. Domestic terrorism will be the topic of this Blog Post, both my personal experience with it and how a community can deal with its aftermath.     Terrorism is a concept that is impossible to fully understand until it affects you or someone in your community. Oftentimes, the media creates a narrative of sympathy for victims instead of empathy, where individuals are meant to feel bad for the victims of the t
Read more

Cybersecurity/Warfare

  Thomas White The New Technological Age of Warfare     Throughout this course, warfare was one of the most consequential and influential factors within the International system. As we learned, there’s an entire system of viewing international politics that says war is the most fundamental interaction between states or governmental bodies. This concept, known as realism, is one that I have previously discussed in a blog post, where I attempted to prove why it is an incorrect viewpoint for the 21st century. I discussed how in the modern age there is too much interaction between states that is not driven by war or seeking power. However, this post is meant to be an exercise in arguing the other side and in an atypical lens. Today, as social media has been skyrocketing to unprecedented and previously unimaginable heights, warfare has taken what may be a new look. Two examples of this are TikTok and the Russian SolarWinds hack on the US, both of which are different scenarios with different
Read more