TED Conversations

Mike Colera

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed.

Should America withdraw as the world "police / peace keepers"?

In 1945, America came out of the war one of the strongest of all of the major participants.
It began to assume the role of a world police/peace keeper promoting it's ideals and political sentiments in an effort to end future conflicts. Of course, there were other competing forces in the world with differing ideas on the world thus creating new conflicts.
70 years later, America spends amounts on it's military that is more then most countries economies. Money that could probably be better spent.
America has based military units per a number of treaties in countries around the world providing host countries with a sense of security and a lower defense budget.

Is it necessary for America to continue this process?

What would be the effect on current world conflicts if America withdraws it's foreign based forces?

Should America honor it's existing treaties or create new accommodations to meet current world political views?

Would America be or feel more secure if it withdraws?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 20 2013: I would not call the USA peacekeepers. I find that the USA need to be involved in wars , because war is used as an economic engine. Maybe if the USA cleaned up its own messes , the public would be better served.
    • thumb
      Mar 20 2013: Is that true?
      American needs war as an economic engine? I can see that argument, but let's look at history.
      How many wars have been successful and how popular?
      Not looking at the civil war, that was a self inflicted wound.
      We barely got past the Revolution, we won that more by GB losing interest.
      GB can back later and spanked the US.
      We spent the next 80 years fighting Native American tribes and a weak Mexican dictator who was more scheming then tactical.
      Then we ran off a broken Spain from it's meager holdings in this hemisphere.
      We really didn't want to get involved in WW 1 but, Germany poked us and so we came in and tipped the balance. Of course, we let the "victorious" Europeans dictate terms and set up WW 2.
      We dragged our feet on WW 2 until the Japanese poked us and we came in again to tip the scales. This time, we got involved in our enemies futures and ignored our allies allowing the USSR to form. We really didn't do that well in Vietnam. Probably got suckered into getting involved in Gulf 1 and 2. I know everyone was blaming our oil interests but when you look at the numbers, that reason and those wars didn't make that much sense. Afghanistan? All we proved there is that the Russians were correct.
      And of these past 200 years of warlike activity did the American people really get behind? Maybe WW 2, and even then there were a large minority who were opposed.
      So, if wars are our thing.... we should be looking for a new thing.
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2013: Maybe the USA should look inwards and take up a war that is bringing the country down...greed. Now I could also point a finger at my own country (Canada) , poverty is growing in both countries , but that 1% seem to be reaping all the benefit.

        Here in Canada and the USA we have been drawn into this new thing call world trade, but what it really means is , this is a new buzz word for exporting jobs on both sides of our boarders . As trade increases , our labour force lose out to countries like Mexico and China. Now that is a war that should be fought. I do my part by not buying as much as I can products made in China , India or Mexico. So yes we should be looking for that new thing and one that builds both our economies.
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2013: Buying stuff made in your country is a good thing, but you have to remember that there are a lot of your countrymen who earn a living bringing foreign stuff from ships to your store shelf.
          I do see greed as a problem, the 1% er, packing broken mortgages to sell to unsuspecting financial companies; to the 99%er, sitting in a late model car, holding the latest cellphone at the food bank drive threw telling all that if there were no food bank, the kids would go hungry. There is plenty of greed on all sides. Worse, politicians buying votes by making it easy to be greedy or covering for the highrollers from prosecution.
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2013: i agree with you that war has been used as an economic engine, not only by USA, but by all major empires in history. but we're supposed to be civilized people, aren't we?

          as for the world trade, USA has not been drawn into it, it created it and most companies benefiting from cheap labour in China and elsewhere are European and American.

          to answer Mike's question, America needs so solve some internal and external problems before they can afford not to get involved in conflicts worldwide. but just like any police force, if your existence depends on conflict, you may not be very "motivated" to change anything, right?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.