 |
|
April 9, 2014
Samuel G. Freedman: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau
Jessica Ivins: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau
Matthew Mientka: How Beans, Peas, And Chickpeas Cleanse Bad Cholesterol and Lowers Risk of Heart Disease
April 8, 2014
Dana Dovey: Coffee Drinkers Rejoice! Your Cup Of Joe Can Prevent Death From Liver Disease
Chris Weller: Electric 'Thinking Cap' Puts Your Brain Power Into High Gear
April 4, 2014
Amy Peterson: A life of love: How to build lasting relationships with your children
John Ericson: Older Women: Save Your Heart, Prevent Stroke Don't Drink Diet
John Ericson: Why 50 million Americans will still have spring allergies after taking meds
Sarah Boesveld: Teacher keeps promise to mail thousands of former students letters written by their past selves
April 2, 2014
Dan Barry: Should South Carolina Jews be forced to maintain this chimney built by Germans serving the Nazis?
Frank Clayton: Get happy: 20 scientifically proven happiness activities
Susan Scutti: It's Genetic! Obesity and the 'Carb Breakdown' Gene
|
| |
Jewish World Review
July 21, 2009
/ 29 Tamuz 5769
Obama Has to Be World Sheriff
By
Paul Johnson
| 
|
|
|
|
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Although the U.S. comes under criticism from all quarters, some facts need to be remembered:
-
Since 1945 America has voluntarily accepted leadership of the democratic West and therefore, ultimately, the responsibility for preserving peace in the world.
-
Since the end of WWII there has been no major war, no open conflict between great powers.
-
This is the longest such period of peace, nearly 65 years, in the recorded history of the world, which is objective testimony to the quality and success of American leadership.
The questions we now face as Barack Obama is subjected to his first practical tests as world security leader are: Can the U.S. continue in this role? Has it the power, the self-confidence and the will to do so? And if America declines to continue as world sheriff, will anyone else take on the duty?
The last question is the most easily answered: No. The UN, whether in the form of its Security Council or General Assembly, has consistently failed to prevent even minor conflicts, except under pressure from strong American leadership. It is just as likely to exacerbate tensions or aggravate violence as it is to end it. NATO, without the U.S., is nothing, as it has repeatedly shown in the Balkans and most recently Afghanistan. The EU—within its own continent, let alone outside it—shows no capacity for leadership in keeping the peace, much less the willingness to supply the physical force needed to give such leadership real meaning.
Britain is the only European state that can be relied upon to fight aggression, and then only in conjunction with American leadership. In the 1980s one of Britain's territories, the Falkland Islands, was occupied by a second-class power, Argentina. Britain fought a solitary campaign successfully to expel the aggressor. But that effort was notable for three things: an exceptionally resolute leader at the helm, cast in the Churchill mold, Margaret Thatcher; the willingness of President Ronald Reagan to give Britain's forces a significant measure of covert logistical support; and the characteristic unwillingness of the Continental Europeans to give Britain any help.
If Europe is useless in keeping the peace, what about the rest of the world? Of the three largest powers, Russia has consistently refused to take any measures other than in direct support of its own security. This is true whether the threat comes from international terrorism or from rogue would-be nuclear powers such as North Korea and Iran. Indeed, Russia is more likely to give moral and even physical support to a lawless aggressor state than to join in a collective effort of restraint. In this respect it is still primarily motivated by the ideological and emotional impulses of the Cold War.
China is an unknown quantity as a potential peacekeeper—and is most unlikely to prove an altruistic one. So far the auguries are not encouraging. The instinct of China's leadership is to oppose any strong moves by the U.S., even when the risk to peace is real. In a world left defenseless by the retreat of American leadership, it is hard to see China acting, except in strict defense of its own national interests. It is not even prepared to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, even though the North, if successful, could ultimately become a threat to China. Beijing has never been willing to do anything practical to prevent nuclear proliferation.
India, being a democracy under the rule of law, is a different case. It's possible to foresee a day when Indian leadership will provide real help in keeping the world at peace. But that time is in the future. India has neither the physical power nor the geopolitical instinct to operate outside its sphere of direct influence. But the potential exists, and the U.S. should make every effort to include India's participation, moral and material, in any peacekeeping effort.
For want of any alternative, it looks as if America will be obliged to continue in its role as the ultimate guardian of the peace. Has it the physical power? Certainly. Though hit hard by the world recession, the U.S. still has the means to keep its armed forces strong and active all over the world. There's no evidence that sustaining its global military effort has weakened its economy—quite the contrary. It's worth remembering that it was only the onset of WWII in September 1939 that really ended the Great Depression in the U.S. and allowed Wall Street to regain its pre-October 1929 levels.
As for whether the U.S. is willing to carry on with the task of keeping peace in the world, it really has no alternative. The option of retiring within its own sphere of interest or even behind the defense of a highly efficient and comprehensive antimissile screen is not a real one. It would be against its long-term interests, as well as the American people's moral nature.
It is right for Mr. Obama to look at the world afresh, to propose initiatives and seek new solutions to old problems. But he will find, as have other Presidents before him, that the range of options is limited. He, like they, will discover through bitter experience that he has to be the lawman, that he must keep the world-town safe. And, as those other Presidents also became aware, only Britain can be trusted to stand by him as deputy sheriff.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
| BUY THE BOOK |
|
 Click HERE to purchase it at a discount. (Sales help fund JWR.). |
|
Eminent British historian and author Paul Johnson's latest book is "American Presidents Eminent Lives Boxed Set: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant". Comment by clicking here.
Previously:
03/24/09: Short works of genius that cheer up the writing profession
02/11/09: What would Darwin do?
01/27/09: Are you sophisticated? Here's how to find out
01/06/09: What did they talk about in the Ice Age? The weather, of course
09/09/08: Time, and our appalling ignorance of it
08/19/08: Eye-stopping glimpses of an exotic and forbidden world
06/30/08: How to fill a lecture hall, and how to empty it
06/23/08: Americans should count their blessings
05/20/08: Pajamas for Presidents
05/13/08: Literary woodlice boring needless holes in biographical bedposts
04/01/08: When markets come crashing down, send for the man with the big red nose
04/01/08: Quality for dinner. Pass the Fairy Liquid, Old Boy
03/25/08: In search of an American President with brains and guts
03/18/08: Technological warfare against mice won't work. Try cats
03/11/08: What is a genius? We use the word frequently but surely, to guard its meaning, we should bestow it seldom
03/03/08: Fiction as a crutch to get one through life
02/26/08: Impatience + Greed = Trouble
02/13/08: Shakespeare, Neo-Platonism and Princess Diana
02/07/08: Where Industry Has Failed Us
12/19/07: People who put their trust in human power delude themselves
12/12/07: What is aggression?
12/04/07: Pursuing success is not enough
11/07/07: Are famous writers accident-prone?
10/31/07: Courage needed to disarm Iran
09/20/07: Who Will Say ‘I Promise to Lay Off’?
07/24/07: Greed is safer than power-seeking
04/02/07: Benefactors must be hardheaded
03/07/07: American idealism and realpolitik
11/28/06: Space: Our ticket to survival
10/24/06: Envy is bad economics
10/11/06: Better to Borrow or Lend? Rethinking conventional wisdom
08/22/06: Don't practice legal terrorism
08/08/06: A summer rhapsody for a pedal-bike
08/03/06: Why is there no workable philosophy of music?
07/11/06: Historically speaking, energy crisis is America's opportunity
07/06/06: The misleading dimensions of persons and lives
06/06/06: First editions are not gold
05/23/06: A downright ugly man need never despair of attracting women, even pretty
ones
04/25/06: Was Washington right about political parties?
04/12/06: Let's Have More Babies!
04/05/06: For the love of trains
03/29/06: Lincoln and the Compensation Culture
03/22/06: Bottle-beauties and the globalised blond beast
03/15/06: Europe's utopian hangover
03/08/06: Kindly write on only one side of the paper
02/28/06: Creators versus critics
02/21/06: The Rhino Principle
© 2009, Paul Johnson
|
|
Columnists
Toons
Lifestyles
|
