19:46 GMT +314 December 2019
Listen Live

    Middle Eastern Misadventures Have Lost the US Right to 'Police the World'

    © Flickr / nicolas stefanni
    Get short URL

    In an op-ed for Huffington Post, journalist Tom Mullen suggested that it's time for the US to give up its ambitions to police the world, recalling that the results so far have been a disaster, and noting that other world powers have the right and even duty to shoulder some responsibility for ensuring the security of territories near their borders.

    In the article, entitled 'Why Can't Russia and China Help Police the World', Mullen suggested that President Obama was right in his apparent reluctant agreement to work with Russia and Iran toward defeating ISIL and Al-Qaeda in the Middle East.

    He noted that Obama's Republican opponents will doubtlessly denounce the president "for not being aggressive enough on the world stage," adding that GOP candidates for president will be forced to move further in pushing for even "sharper increases in military spending and even more aggressive foreign intervention [strategies]."

    Mullen explained that Obama's critics are likely to suggest that "if the United States is not 'engaged' (i.e. bombing or invading) in all crises at all times in every part of the world, emerging powers like Russia or China are going to fill the resulting vacuum." "That," in the journalist's view, "raises an obvious question: So, what?"

    The journalist believes the West is not "justified" or even "capable of policing everyone," noting that the US has already "made a holy mess of the international order during its" twenty year "tenure as the sole superpower."

    The journalist points to a string of foreign policy disasters and failed states which have emerged in the wake of the neoconservative Project for a New American Century and its plans to "remake the Middle East" into "a region dominated by new, Western-style democracies."

    Moreover, Mullen notes, rather than being strictly a Republican or Democratic problem, this has been a "completely bipartisan disaster," with the interventionists pursuing "this insane vision under both the Bush and Obama administrations, deposing Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak among others. Have American taxpayers benefited from the results? How?"

    The journalist suggests that the Obama White House has been even more interventionist in terms of the total number of countries it has "engaged," while also managing "to antagonize both Russia and China into allying more with each other and with Iran."

    The journalist ominously warns that now the interventionists are "pushing hard to continue with Assad in Syria and Khamenei in Iran." Mullen notes that "while there is plenty to say against both regimes, how could any sane person believe the results will be different than they were in Iraq, Libya or Egypt?"

    In the journalist's analysis, the neocon hawks' "arming of Syrian rebels may have [in fact] done more to create ISIS than pulling US troops out of Iraq." As for the so-called Arab Spring and the crisis in Ukraine, the journalist emphasizes that US intelligence had active roles in fomenting both.

    Interventionists Treat International Relations 'Like a Game of Stratego'

    "Interventionists from both parties talk about international relations like they're playing Stratego, where one nation has to win and every other has to lose," Mullen explains.

    Unfortunately, "voters are too willing to accept that ridiculous assumption, instead of asking some pretty obvious questions: How do American taxpayers benefit by subsidizing Syrian rebels? How are they harmed if Assad stays in power? Why should they care if China is the dominant naval force in the sea bearing its name? What benefit did they derive from the Ukrainian revolution and how will they be harmed if it is reversed?"

    All these questions lead, in Mullen's view, to the "ultimate question every American should be asking their elected officials, in both parties," which is: "How did American taxpayers become financially responsible for the liberty and security of every soul on the planet and when will this responsibility end?"

    The journalist suggests that the US's belligerent posture in relation to Russia and China, on the pretense that the two emerging powers are "expansionist," is wildly inaccurate, given "Russia's rather restrained reactions to conflicts on its border fomented, at least in part, by US intelligence." When it comes to the Russian leadership's so-called 'expansionism', Mullen notes that "American taxpayers would be well served to compare the list of Russian military bases outside its border to the corresponding US list. How can American politicians keep a straight face while calling Putin aggressive?"

    As for China, the journalist points out that given America's massive military budget, it's outrageous that "the US government has the audacity to point to China's modest military spending increases as proof of its aggressive tendencies, never once stopping to ask why China might perceive a need to spend more. Could it be because China is one of [top] ten countries who combined don't spend as much as the US?"

    In the final analysis, Mullen suggests that "twenty years of 'exceptionalism' has provided zero benefits to American taxpayers. All they have received for their money is a $4 trillion government with an $18 trillion debt, a far more dangerous world and the added benefit of a domestic police force that behaves as if it's patrolling the streets of Fallujah instead of New York or Boston."

    The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.


    US Unilateral Actions in Syria Lead to ISIL Reinforcement, Migrant Crisis
    By Toppling Assad US Will Open Damascus' Doors to ISIL – Stephen Cohen
    policing, unipolarity, expert, US hegemony, superpower, hegemony, opinion piece, op-ed, opinion, Tom Mullen, World, China, United States, Russia
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik