Asymmetrical Information

I believe it was an extension of simple frontier preparedness: two World Wars in which the United States got involved after trying to avoid entanglement led to a determination to be ready for the inevitable next round. The fact that we did stay prepared then became the impetus for the Soviets to not start anything: you mug a guy when he is unaware and unarmed, not when he is eyeing you with one hand on the pistol.

And exploiting our role further would have been more trouble than it was worth. After all, we DID expand our own welfare state during the period as much as we could, we just didn't throw over defense spending for a marginal increase in usable funds (already being spending beyond the point of diminishing returns).

Just me thought.

I don't think, as Americans, we're brought up to be imperialistic. I no more want 'control' of France than I do of my neighbor's yard.

As a society we have so much that wanting more feels greedy. I make sure I throw nothing away that could be used by someone else less fortunate than me. Maybe this kind of thinking permeates the way we see ourselves in the world which equates to a lack of support for candidates that would see things otherwise.

Hmm, maybe it's Europe's fault? After all, nobody could have expected western Europe to stand up to the USSR all by themselves in the late 1940s. By, say, the mid-50s, it was in Europe's best interest to encourage us to continue to be the world's policeman.

Alternately, the initial impetus may have been Harry Truman's fault. Everyone half-expected that we would sink back into a Depression after the war was over; keeping more guys in uniform than we really needed to might have helped prevent this. (Last I heard, the conventional wisdom was that the economy continued to grow because of pent-up demand [and savings] from the war years, and because the new television industry absorbed a lot of workers.)

Jane:

1. I think part of the answer is that we aren't the world's policeman, and claims to the other are just PR. It's not like we enforce the world's law whenever it is violated - we are perfectly happy to ignore Rwanda till it's too late and then grieve about it afterwards, for example. We don't
string along with the majority as regards the Israeli-Palestinian issue. (Nutbars - I support Israel's right to exist; attack elsewhere). We act in ways that are in our perceived interests. Since the table appears to be tilted towards the pocket we're shooting at, it looks the same as if we were maintaining the status quo. Note that I think it's entirely reasonable for us to behave this way.

2. The costs of the military are just the costs of shortening a risk by being in charge. We are much better positioned to structure the world to our benefit (however lightly) with out military as the juggernaut that it is. I'm not sure that this isn't analogous to really wealthy people or corporations (on both sides) putting substantial efforts into making sure that their candidate for government office gets in. I (like you, I think) don't think that there is rampant graft at the federal level. I assume that the wealthy/corps. are in general unlikely to be affected by the difference between two candidates. But they might, and it's probably worth paying for insurance against that chance.

3. We got stuck with it. IIRC, the "policeman" thing attaches after the Sovs go bye-bye. But what do you do when you have two teams struggling against each other for whatever, and one just walks off the field? I think you declare victory and hang out. And then, as anyone who's spent time on a public basketball court knows, you've got to play whoever called "next."

This caused me to wonder something for perhaps the first time: why did we agree to be the world/s policeman? The rest of the developed world essentially opted out of military development in favour of building their welfare states--why didn't we? After all, we were perhaps the country least threatened by the Soviet Union.

As far as the threat of the Soviet Union, I think that you might be forgetting or discounting the little matter of Kruschev trying to put missiles in Cuba. I seem to recall that a lot of my parent’s generation found that a defining moment of their lifetime. There was also the concern about further Soviet incursions or satellite states being set up in Latin America. It could be that the Cold Warriors thought it better to fight the enemy overseas (Korea, Vietnam) rather than have to fight them on our doorstep.

Just my $0.02.

A country does not "take on" the superpower project, a country either is or isn't a superpower. The choice other countries put on that superpower is global policework or isolationism with very little allowance for middle ground. The central question is why the United States has not abused it's status as superpower very much.

Four things come to mind.

Firstly, the United States has had the benefit of looking at the mess and resentment that results from superpowers asserting their dominance and perhaps there was a bit of a collective decision that "we want no part of it".

Secondly, unlike every other superpower in history, the U.S. is broadly democratic and so it is hard to do something that's very exploitative with out lots of people wanting to throw you out of office. The attitude bred in to our leaders by democratic politics is one of slow change and caution. Straying from that norm puts one's neck out, something most politicians aren't able to do.

Thirdly, whether we are very convious of it or not, the U.S. is the product of a superpower taking advantage of its status and the anger that arose from those abuses (or at least the Colonists saw it that way).

Fourthly, the United States felt deeply threatened by the Soviets for the bulk of time the U.S. has had superpower status. Accordingly, the U.S. spent more energy as a superpower trying to contain the Soviets than trying to exploit superpower status for wealth.

I'd like to say we simply have a good national character, but it's hard to isolate a national character in a country of 280+ millions of people, at least on matters of superpower politics.

- Ben

I think PJ's answer came closest. At the end of WWII, the U.S. was essentially the only power that could take on the Soviet Union, the only other power pursuing military development. Sure, it would have been preferable to have multiple poles facing the threat. That just wasn't an option. After all, who was going to stop the Red Army? Germany? England? That just wasn't going to happen, even if we'd wanted it. Of course, once the American security umbrella was proffered, the remaining powers had little incentive to rebuild their security infrastructure. The global policeman role is merely the consequence of the collapse Soviet Union and the atrophy of the military capabilities of the remaining developed powers.

What Bill said. Everybody else looks at us and figures : they'll do it. We look at everybody else and figure: they won't. Vicious cycle, and once established it's probably impossible to break.

Naturally, the answer to your questions is complex and many faceted. However, it is an enormous overstatement to say we are the world's policeman. If that were the case we would be doing a lot more in various parts of the world.

We are beginning a pro-active phase of engagement to secure our own national security as our relationship with Europe erodes. I cover that in the description of the Condolleezza Doctrine.

The US needs to selectively diffuse threats to America. That is not the same as being the world's policeman. If we were the world's policeman we would engage and replace dozens of nations' governments that are really just thugocratic institutions hoisted upon the residents of their respective regions. That's not happening and it's not going to happen.

We are beginning to take our role as the sole economic and military superpower. This role involves insuring the protection of economic resources and institutions.

America loves freedom, but it can't provide it for all. Other nations must follow our lead and embrace our ideology. Our battles are few and must be extremely well chosen.

The neo-imperialism charge is ludicrous. Our occupation forces have been symbolic deterrents to foreign aggression for almost sixty years. We pulled largely out of Afghanistan and will only retain troops as long as necessary to help maintain the growth and stability of the newly minted quasi-democracies.

The charge is leveled at America by those who really do seek to exploit the world's people's and resources.

"World's policeman" is a loaded phrase and is used often lately to deride a pro-active national security policy.

SDAI-Tech1

A number of people answered by saying, essentially, that we took on the SovUnion because we were the only country that could. This is true, but doesn't answer the question of why we did. After all, we're also the only country that could take on Canada or Mexico, but we haven't done so.

Tim, you also aren't quite answering my question. You respond that we've always acted in our self-interest. This is true, but what I want to know is why we perceived it as in our interest to act (in a broad sense) to stabilise the world, rather than loot it. We could be signing sham sweetheart oil contracts with Iraq, for example, but instead we're turning over sovereignty as fast as possible. And while we certainly aren't policing every conflict, I think we're as close to a global policeman as the world has yet seen.

A number of people answered by saying, essentially, that we took on the SovUnion because we were the only country that could. This is true, but doesn't answer the question of why we did. After all, we're also the only country that could take on Canada or Mexico, but we haven't done so.

Also, Jane would you mind giving this and the previous thread a title? Makes it easier to navigate. Thanks.

Maybe an atrophied Europe wasn't a byproduct of our policies, but a deliberate result. After all, if Europe depends on us for protection, and never gets around to building up their forces, then they can't threaten us again.

Addict them to US military welfare, keep them weak, and over the long run trouble stops coming to us from that part of the world. Maybe we should find a way to get Russia and China to depend on US protection as well, not to mention the entire Middle East.

Jane, I read this article and remember a little bit of personal history.

About several years ago the family buisness when through what amounted to as a full employee rotation. All old personnel left and new people came in while working on a rather large condo development. Pops started leaving the jobsite more, and even though he wanted to make every decision of dealing with issues on units, he was no longer around to do so (This was before we got our Bleepers...er..Nextels). I was the one with the most senior one around, and more often then not, issues needed to get resolved right away. We couldn't finish the building, and get paid for it, until it was complete.

I started calling shots for the crew and dealing with all the other trades. Not because it was "good buisness" or cause I was told too. I did it because I wanted to make sure that at the end of the week, There was no excuse as to why I wasn't getting paid, as the building were all getting done. None of this "waiting to get resolved" crap.

I think the United States has done the same. It's in our own interests to do so, with no other vialbe alternative. The nation wants to make sure its paycheck still arrives with no excuse not to.

I think we're as close to a global policeman as the world has yet seen.

X belongs to both A and B
Y belongs to A not B
Observing the presence of Y does not mean it is necessarily similar to B.

Police use guns. Military use guns. This does not mean when you see a man with a gun they are a policeman or a member of the military.

Our actions have nothing to do with policing and everything to do with our own interests and security.

You see benevolence and altruism where there is none. Just because Russia or France might've signed oil deals doesn't make our not signing an oil deal a sign of altruism. We are merely not corrupt.

Thorley Winston writes,

wanted a strong French or German or Italian military as they thought it might lead to a third war on their continent.

I think this is an important point as regards Germany, at least. While no one wanted West Germany to fall under Soviet domination, there was no enthusiasm whatsoever for allowing the country to remilitarize. So one solution was for the US to assume a protective role.

Jane, you little dialectical materialist you: you seem to be asking for an explanation for why it was inevitable that we took on the role that we did. Short answer: it wasn't. Stuff happens. The point is, once we're there, we're stuck. If you're looking for any single outstanding reason, I'd offer the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, which people often think of as insulating us from the rest of the world. They don't. We really got into the global policing business about the same time the U.S. Navy took over the task of keeping the sea lanes open from the Royal Navy (and no, don't jump on me, I realize that there were plenty of other things going on at the end of WWII.) But that task is the granddaddy of all global stabilization tasks, and once we were invested in it we became much more likely to invest in other stabilization tasks as well.

Why did the US fight the Russians? Because otherwise the war would have been a waste. There's no point expending blood and treasure to break an evil empire if you're just going to give the territory to another evil empire.

Harry Truman's decision to create global institutions advanced the United States as "world policeman". Truman was building on the legacy of Woodrow Wilson's efforts. Our interests in free trade may have motivated the US to engage in these sorts of efforts. The advent of nuclear weapons provided further impetus for US engagement in international politics.

Jane:

1. The reason we maintain the status quo is because we win the majority of hands under the status quo. Imagine that the capital a person has access to was the best predictor of success in economic terms, and that lenders of capital had rules that favored a small group of potential borrowers. If you're in that group, it benefits you to just keep things as they are. You may not win every round, but there are a lot of rounds, and you'll win the majority.

2. Why aren't we more exploitative of our advantages? Because it's a lot easier to maintain the status quo if everyone agrees it is roughly fair. So you act in a way that minimizes the chance that others will recognize the inherent advantages you have and complain about it, or worse, try to do something about it. (This is yet another reason I didn't want to go into Iraq, and preferred consensus if were absolutely going in).

It's a bit like a casino not cheating. It could probably cheat pretty easily, but why do it? Given the structure of the games that are played, they're going to make out like bandits anyway. And if they get caught cheating, it's going to cost them more in marketing to get the same crowds in than the made by cheating.

I think the above responds the question of "why we perceived it as in our interest to act (in a broad sense) to stabilise the world, rather than loot it."

3. "And while we certainly aren't policing every conflict, I think we're as close to a global policeman as the world has yet seen."

I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here. I don't think we're forcefully involved in even a bare majority of places where the world is going to hell (most of Africa, large parts of Central and Latin America). Where we have been involved in those places, we've been involved in ways that were largely self-interested (the contras, Salvadoran death squads, support by silence re: apartheid, etc). I'm not saying this is wrong, or we are or were evil, or anything like that. But I'm not sure how this maps on to the concept of a "world policeman," except to say that we are, in fact, a unipolar world now.

4. I'm not sure from what point you date us as the "world's policeman." I don't know if it really describes our role during the cold war, and I don't remember its use during the part of the cold war that I remember (tail end).

Something that seems to be overlooked is simple civic culture, the consequences that Manifest Destiny and the City Upon a Hill had once continental expansion was complete.

There is the chauvinist idea, reinforced to the point of becoming propaganda, that the USian way is the best - and that propaganda is bearing fruit in Iraq as I write this.

...But the advent of strategic bombing and total warfare turned the traditional (originally Jeffersonian) policy of isolationism completely on its head.

If the world gets reduced to rubble, how can you propagate American democracy, after all?

When put head to head with a comparably chauvinistic Russian attitude at the bidding of the elites of a non-participatory government, the Cold War resulted, more or less as predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville more than a century before.

The Bush 43 era foreign policy, meanwhile, is a consequence IMO of an odd sort of mercantilist realpolitik (see also "crusade"), gotten off to a hopping start by the preponderance of the United States' ability to project military strength.

Tim : you've got a somewhat romanticized view of cops, I think! Policemen don't dispense justice: they maintain a necessary minimum of order. The United States lets some neighborhoods go to hell their own way. So does any big-city police department.

Jane,

Because it is in our long term interests in every possible way to avoid imperial overreach. We don't rape and pillage because allies are more profitable than colonies (using "profit" far more broadly than simply cash).

The USA simply engaged in (and continues to engage in) smart long-term planning. We took on the Soviets because an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. We are in Iraq today because Islamic terrorism is a curse we would have to address sooner or later and we made the obvious choice that fighting them there beats fighting them in NYC (at least the choice is obvious to anyone who isn't as insane as Michael Moore groupies).

We build up the rest of the world because strong democracies with developed economies are best for all of us. Ripping off the rest of the world would have simply created a world impossible to manage.

This isn't any different than the decision that a business owner makes to train and develop quality employees. You invest in your people (rather than exploit them) because it pays off in the long run.

P.S. Before anyone confuses me with the sort who parrots Michael Moore's line &c., bear in mind that I'm sympathetic to the idea that USian civic values have a lot to recommend them.

I also believe that one man's treasure is another man's trash, so to speak.

Mated with the impression that the Administration went off half-cocked with the Iraq invasion (ahem, stop-loss?) the result is a lot of dissatisfaction with the way things are going - not exultation at the proof of any liberal argument that Conservatives Are Bad.

No, seriously. IMO if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated at the zenith of his career, he'd be as badly eviscerated for his foreign policy as revisionists have tried to do to Reagan.

It's definitely a matter of civic culture, not political culture. (Whee. Splitting hairs.)

One more note -- this idea that some have stated in this thread -- that the US "wins" a majority of the hands is just silly left wing verbal vomit.

Ricardo showed us 200 years ago that trade benefits both parties. Every country that trades with the US is better for it. Both the US and the rest of the world benefits from this approach.

This zero sum garbage is getting so tiresome.

"With great power comes great responsibility". Trite, but true.

We came out of WWII better than any other nation on Earth, and, because of our social, political and economic system, we prospered as no other nation ever has. We became WorldCop because there was no one else to do it, and we needed to protect our own interests.

That's my take on it anyway.

Glenn Reynolds has a lot of stuff up today which points to how well things are going in Iraq. Certainly much better than in Germany in 1945.

Bush, the poker player extraordinaire, always has a longer term strategy than the fools who are so desperate to attack him. Anyone who has already reached a judgment that Iraq is doomed to failure probably moans that his (or her) team is doomed to finish last if the other team scores first in the first game of the season.

We are the world's policeman because nobody else will do it. Everytime we retreat home, return to our boundaries, focus on commercial and lifestyle improvements a new, nastier form of thug grows up unopposed.

We tried to stay out of WWI. We had had strong PRO-German and anti-War activists before WWII. We had many who wanted us to stay out of Korea.

Each conflict produces a new form of the same old "Might-Makes-Right, Do-As-I-Say-Or-I-Kill-You" thug. They grow stronger, nastier and harder to fight with each itteration.

The alternative is to be driven within our boundaries, surrounded by enemies, awaiting the slaughter to visit our cities and neighborhoods.

We are the worlds policeman because we have no better alternative.

"(Last I heard, the conventional wisdom was that the economy continued to grow because of pent-up demand [and savings] from the war years, and because the new television industry absorbed a lot of workers.)"

The conventional wisdom might want to remember that there was a pretty wrenching post-war contraction in 1946-1947. Hence the reason Truman was so unpopular he almost lost to Dewey.

Joe wrote:

"Jane, you little dialectical materialist you: you seem to be asking for an explanation for why it was inevitable that we took on the role that we did. Short answer: it wasn't. Stuff happens. The point is, once we're there, we're stuck."

Well, it was kinda inevitable. As the US had metaphorically hung the UK upside down and shaken all the change out of the UK's pockets during lend-lease (see Sikorsky's biography of Keynes for more on this), the UK was not able to perform the role it had done previously due to being stony broke. And the other Western European nations were in even worse shape. Hence, when the Communists looked like they might take over Greece, Ernie Bevin picks up the phone and tells Dean Acheson that the UK can't hold back the Communists. So Nato was formed.

Why the US didn't loot in the way that France, Belgium, and the UK (to a lesser extent) did? Because trade was a small portion of its GDP, unlike those previous empires.

The US didn't need to exploit other countries to grow, and why create dissention in First World ranks by egregious exploitation of the old imperialist style (that's not to say that there weren't a few interventions to support US national & commercial interests - overthrowing Mossadeq springs to mind).

The United States is the global cop where it matters most, which is the sea lanes, and the descendents of John Paul Jones perform that task better than any other navy that has ever cut water. True, plenty of chaos takes place off the sea lanes, and some on them, but just because mayhem reigned in the old Cabrini Green, and some crimes ocurred on the Kennedy Expressway a few blocks away, it didn't mean that Chicago or Illinois didn't have a police force.

As far as why the U.S. has performed this role, that is complex question, but I would attribute most of it too enlightened self-interest; trade is often more profitable than conquest.

The two word answer:

a. Geography

b. Philosophy

I think there is a brilliant essay on the subject that can be written around those two themes, considering them over the past 250-300 years - wish I had the chops to write it.

A question this good deserves a brilliant answer.

Questions & Answers:

1. The rest of the developed world opted out of military development, why didn't we? Answer: Historical accident. The rest of the developed world was pretty much wiped out by two world wars, so if anyone was going to stand against communism, it would have to be America.

2. Okay, but why did we decide to stand against communism? Answer: Simple as it may sound, we thought communism was bad. It was a political philosophy supremely contrary to the political philosophy of the US. Worse, it was an *evangelical* political philosophy whose stated goal was the conversion of the entire world to communism. Although the current generation forgets this or never knew it, throughout much of the Cold War said conversion seemed not only possible but at times even probable.

Much like the current war on Islamic fundamentalism & Middle Eastern despotism, the view was that we'd have to fight it eventually, so we might as well fight it now -- and preferably fight it somewhere other than the US mainland.

3. Why is the US the global policeman? Answer: We're not, but now that the Soviets are gone we're by far the strongest nation, militarily & economically, on the planet. As such, we are the target of all the hopes, fears, wishes, curses, dreams and nightmares of the rest of the planet. If we intervene in areas of crisis the planet asks why we throw our weight around like a bully. If we don't intervene the planet asks why a nation so great and powerful won't help. It's not exactly fair, but that's the price you pay for being the Big Dog.

Tom : I believe you're the first member of the Blame America for Lend-Lease Crowd I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. I tend to think it was Admiral Doenitz, not FDR, who did the shaking of England's pockets.

A friend of mine likes to answer this question by remembering the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence", a very popular western that John Ford made in the early 1960s. Valence, played by Lee Marvin, is very a bad guy operating as he pleases in the late 19th century wild west. He terrorizes the local town, Shinbone, with whips and guns but is threatened when law and order rides into town from the east, personified by a young and idealistic lawyer, Rance Stoddard, played by James Stewart. Rance wants the sherrif to arrest Valence and put him in jail. The sheriff, however, is afraid of Valence and won't cooperate. Rance is not afraid but he doesn't know how to use a gun. In the end it is not the law that defeats Valence. It it is a good and decent man, Tom Donovon, played by John Wayne, who shoots Valence dead but allows Rance to claim all the credit. Valence killed, law and order can take hold in Shinbone. The territory becomes a state and Rance is elected Senator. He knows the truth though. He didn't shoot Liberty Valence and he didn't bring law and order to Shinbone - Tom Donovon did.

Europe, or at least certain parts of it, are Rance Stoddard. They have an idealistic faith in law - international treaties, the U.N., etc. - and do not know how to use a weapon. However, Europe's faith in law (and here the analogy to Rance Stoddard ends) is not just idealistic, it is probably a bit cynical as well. For being militarily weak, law and public opinion are their weapons, and about their only ones at that. Having lived under the defensive umbrella of the U.S. for so long, their ability and desire to defend themselves using force long ago vanished. So now they live in their welfare states, and have no independent means to project power and influence in the world except through diplomacy and international law.

America is Tom Donovon. Yes we believe in the rule of law. But unlike Europe, or at least certain parts of it, we know that the law and international treaties cannot by themselves rid the world of all threats to the international community. We know that from our experience in fighting Nazis and Soviets. Our culture and values, including films such as Liberty Valence, tell us that we are a City on the Hill and that we can and should project power to defeat evil in the world. Unlike Europe, we have the means to project power, a historical fact arising from the devatation of European powers after WW II as well as our stable and free political system. Like Tom Donovon, we know that if we don't stop the Liberty Valence's of this world, no one will. Because of our wealth and self confidence, borne probably by a religious impulse that further separates us from europe, we are strong, self confident and idealistic. Like Tom Donovon, after the forces of evil are defeated we step aside and allow law and order to take its root. We did it in Europe and Japan, and we will do it again in Iraq.

I think we're also forgetting the role of key individuals. John Lewis Gaddis' excellent The Strategies of Containment discusses the formulation of what became NSC-68.

So, a bunch of "wise men," who are advising Harry Truman (after advising FDR), conclude in the waning days of World War II and the immediate aftermath that there are certain key parts of the world that need to be kept under not-unfriendly hands if the US is to be safe. These "power centers" are the US, the UK, Western Europe (as one entity), the USSR, and Japan.

To their view, Hitler was a threat b/c he WOULD have controlled Western Europe, the USSR and the UK, if he'd succeeded. The USSR was a threat because it wanted to control Western Europe and Japan (not necessarily by force).

From such small acorns, throw in the Berlin Blockade and the Korean War, and you can see how, in the shadow of Munich, one might conclude that there was no choice but to contain the USSR, because they were going for the gusto.

This is in addition to the cultural, historical, and economic arguments noted by the various folks previously in this thread.

First, note the countries that are more or less on our side: Britain, Australia, to some extent India, etc. Good Anglo-Saxon influenced countries. Second, go back in history and look at some of the arguments in Britain over continuing the war with the American colonies. One side wanted to pursue old-fashioned colonial power and control over America, the other side pointed out that the true source of British power lay not in military or political power, but in economic power based on trade and prosperity.

Wealth, prosperity, and the freedom that allows for both is the source of America's true power. And Americans, and other Anglo-Saxon societies tend to recognize that source. When we look abroad, we also recognize what Freedom House's annual reports make clear: high levels of prosperity require high levels of freedom. If we are to prosper, and you are to prosper, then we must work toward freedom--not colonial power politics or foriegn control.

The problem is Old Europe still thinks of power in the old way of physical and political domination. That's why they always try to claim we're being imperialist. Because that's the way they understand the exercise of power.

As someone above has said, we don't live in a zero-sum world. When Europe rebuilt after WWII, it didn't do so at the expense of America, but to our benefit and theirs. Americans, Brits, and Aussies seem to have a better understanding of that than others.

For us, prosperity is more important than the exercise of power, and prosperity for in other countries usually benefits us as well.

Joe:

"[Y]ou've got a somewhat romanticized view of cops, I think! Policemen don't dispense justice: they maintain a necessary minimum of order."

You're probably right. In fact, I'd bet that police are often more responsive to people with power and money, and some few cops are actually interlinked with the bad guys, and extract profits for allowing the bad guys to continue. But someone else sets the basic rules for cops to enforce. I'm not sure who that someone else is in Jane's formulation. If you think the cops set the rules, or the cops figure out, independently, what the minimum society will agree to is, then I think you and I descriptively agree about what the US does. But I took it that Jane meant "policeman" in the idealized way.

Stan:

"This zero sum garbage is getting so tiresome."

At base, I think that what we're playing for is power (to make others obey us, to make the world as we would have it, etc.), and power is zero sum. I find it hard to believe that Americans would be happy if our standard of living continued to rise, but, for example, Japan and China became the dominant economic powers.

"Ricardo showed us 200 years ago that trade benefits both parties."

I don't think comparative advantage enters into it when you're debating the rules of a game. Or, perhaps it does enter into it, but only loosly enough to establish the case for trade and set outer boundaries on the terms of trade.

As an example, imagine African-Americans trading their service under Jim Crow laws and after those laws are abolished. Prior to abolishment, (by Ricardo) it still helps African-Americans to trade their services with white Americans - they're better off than if they did nothing, or tried to replicate the entire white world in a black setting. But I have to believe that they were able to make better economic deals for themselves after Jim Crow laws were abolished. And I have to think that white Americans who supported such laws did so because they believe it gave them some advantage they wouldn't otherwise have.

Joe wrote: "Tom : I believe you're the first member of the Blame America for Lend-Lease Crowd I've ever had the pleasure of meeting."

Me and John Maynard Keynes, then, who likened negotiations with the US Treasury as being like an unpleasant illness from which it took a long time to recover. Churchill might have referred to Lend-Lease as being an unselfish act, but the US Treasury was definitely not acting as an altruist.

From Churchill's Grand Alliance, by John Charmley:

"But Morgenthau and the Treasury were committed to a policy of
keeping British dollar reserves low and creating a system of freely
exchangeable currencies. It was not necessary to be an economic
reactionary to see that this would produce a situation where Britian's
precarious dollar and gold reserves would be sucked out in the
direction of the United States, not just by domestic demand, but also
by those areas of the sterling bloc such as Egypt and India liquidating
their large (but useless) supplies of sterling for the almighty dollar.

As Keynes put it when writing to Stettinius in April 1944, he had not
only failed to "emphasize the point that the U.S. Administration was
very careful to take every possible precaution to see that the British
were as near as possible to bankruptcy before any assistance was given',
but he had also omitted to mention 'the recent recrudescence of these
same standards, according to which 'lend-lease ought to be appropriately
abated whenever there seems the slightest prospect that leaving things as
they are might possibly result in leaving the British at the end of the war
other than hopelessly insolvent': quite so.

This was the real price which was being paid for the American alliance."

More on Lend-lease, from Skidelsky's Preface to his third volume on Keynes:

"...Britain and America spent much of the war jockeying for post-war position. The battleground of this war was finance. I have called it 'Keynes's War' to distinguish it from 'Churchill's War'--because without Lend-Lease Britain could not have fought Churchill's War, and financial negotiations with the United States took up most of Keynes's time from 1941 till his death in 1946. The plot of this war was simple: America tried to get the highest price, Britain to pay the lowest price, for lend-lease..."

"American readers might be shocked by the revelation in these pages of the bitterness of Anglo-American rivalry. They should not be. Commercial and financial conflict had embittered relations between the two countries in the 1930s, with each one blaming the other for breakdown of the world economy. It was as natural for the United States to use its wartime financial leverage to weaken Britain as a financial and commercial rival as it was for the British to try to minimise or evade the strings attached to American help. But it is not easy to get this message across, first because it shatters the myth of the United front against evil, secondly, because Americans tend to believe that their nation is uniquely idealistic, and therefore exempt from calculation of self-interest.

(Emphasis added)

Brad DeLong debates Skidelsky on this at:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TotW/skidelsky-response.html

I dont think we are the worlds policeman. Theres disasters all over the world we dont get involved in, it takes an economic reason or a threat to Europe to bring us off the sidelines. I dont think we are the worlds only superpower. While the fall of the USSR has elevated the US as superior to Russia, its not by much. As long as they have all those nukes, its wrong to think that we are head and shoulders above Russia as a global player, at least as far as the military goes. MAD still exists.

I think post WW2 politics were governed by two main factors. First, WW2 was fought mainly in Europe, and most European countries were left in rubble. Our allies needed help in rebuilding, and we were in position to help them, while making money, and this resulted in the reconstruction of western Europe. The USSRs developement of nukes and embrace of a military despotism in the guise of communism made them a threat to both us and Europe, so the cold war was started.

SomeCallMeTim: "I have to believe that they were able to make better economic deals for themselves after Jim Crow laws were abolished. And I have to think that white Americans who supported such laws did so because they believe it gave them some advantage they wouldn't otherwise have."

And I think that those white Americans were mistaken. The South under Jim Crow was much poorer than the rest of the USA. In the beginning, that was because of the destruction wrought by the Civil War, but the South remained poor and backwards almost a century later. Then Jim Crow was ended - by massed federal marshals where necessary - and the South suddenly became attractive to industry.

Inasmuch as the we are the "world's policemen", it's because we got stuck with the job.

Did you ever have it happen, back in college, that you and some friends drove to a party, and you ended up being the designated driver -- not because you wanted to be, or planned to be, but because the others all got wasted, leaving you with a choice between "not being able to get home" and "staying sober"? That's pretty much what happened to the United States. All the other democracies chose butter over guns; that left us with no real choice at all.

I think a lot of people are disputing the difference between being the "world's policeman" and the "western world's policeman." The former definition fails in a number of respects -- the US has only engaged in compartively minor degree in Central/South America; and it has been involved in Africa only in very limited use of force a rather small number of times.

Now, the latter definition mostly holds if you include Japan and portions of SE Asia in the equation, but therein lies a confirmation of the post-WWII theorizers. It was in the best economic interests of the US to prop up and defend that block of countries and it did so to the point that many of them did not aquire an interest in funding their own defense.

In particular Europe, disgusted with war after immolating itself twice, went instead to inter-continental trade alliances and generous welfare states and long statutory vacations and other feel-good policy making, made possible by the money they weren't spending on defense.

IOW, having taken on some policing duties in the post-WWII climate, the US kind of got stuck with them. And we have to police to defend our economic interests, so you're left with sort of a novelty drinking-bird effect.

First, the US has sometimes exploited superior power to extend itself (from the Appalachians to the Pacific by beating Indians and Mexicans militarily and then swamping the small existing populations of the western states in larger numbers of Americans, Hawaii by swamping the native population and political chicanery, Alaska by having ready cash and the ability to defend the land when Russia probably couldn't). For a few years after the Spanish-American War, the US even used superior power to subjugate and exploit foreign lands, in much the same way the British once exploited their American colonies. But it didn't work out to much profit. I doubt Puerto Rico has ever returned as much as administering it as a territory costs. I don't know the balance sheet for the Philipines, but just thirty years after fighting a remarkably nasty guerilla war to keep them, we had set them up with a representative republic of their own, albeit not full independence. (E.g., an American Army general was their Secretary of Defense.) Then a Japanese invasion intervened - and whatever our pre-war intentions were, afterwards we were quite ready to handover power to the first Filipino government that looked capable of maintaining themselves against communist subversion.

However, America always had a competing model for dealing with foreign lands - free trade. Empires generally have a history of conquering or colonizing foreign lands and then impoverishing them with looting, heavy taxation, and trade restrictions intended to direct most of the profits to the conquerors. (E.g., the British attempted to force all trade with their American colonies' to pass through English ports.) Possibly we were often wise enough to see that trade with prosperous lands would bring more wealth in the long run than driving them into poverty.

Then there are the historical and geographical accidents. The US role as a superpower began because our cities and industries were nearly all out of reach of the other combatants in WWI and WWII. In addition, (except for the naval war with Japan) we avoided the bloody first battles of each war and learned the new tactics required by new weaponry by watching others' mistakes rather than by seeing our own young men mowed down. So we kept much more of our factories and the men to run them, and hence had the wealth to equip our armed forvces far better than any other nation.

In 1945, we were the ONLY military superpower - even discounting our temporary monopoly on nukes. We let the Soviets pretend they were the other superpower, because we were tired of killing Germans and Japanese and didn't want to kill a few million Russian troops too, not because we couldn't. (I think the American public also lacked the cynicism to use the moment of victory to attack a former ally, even if that alliance had been a merely a choice of evils.) The Soviets soon acquired nukes of their own, which forced us to have a certain respect for their military capabilities, but the main Soviet threat was always communist subversion, not overt invasion.

The best counter to communist propaganda was always prosperity, and so helping all not-yet-communist countries enrich themselves was a critical part of winning the Cold War (if possible, that is if they were capable of creating a government that wouldn't loot them into poverty).

Read your Kipling. While "The White man's burden" appears blatantly racist to us today, it was actually more about the responsibilities of world power and inspired by the US taking over the Phillipines. It was clear to Kipling at the turn of the century that the British Empire could not continue to maintain international order through the 20th century and that the US would need to to take up some of the task. Not a bad call I would have thought, although I suspect he saw more of a partnership rather than the rapid collapse of the Empire.

Markm:

"And I think that those white Americans were mistaken."

As a general matter I'd agree. But I'm not sure how that responds to my point regarding stan's earlier comment about comparative advantage and trade - I don't see how it connects directly to the question of whether the status quo (of the 90s) benefits us.

I note a few additional points:

1. The problem is that the white Americans didn't agree - they thought the Northerners were screwing them. Similarly, if the US loses credibility with the rest of the world, particularly on grounds of fairness (whatever that means), it becomes more expensive for us to get people to move in the ways we want. If the Arab world hates us more now than before, it becomes harder/more expensive to get them to do as we'd like. That's why it's in our interests for the rest of the world to believe we are basically fair. I don't think that they do at the moment.

2. Some of the southern whites weren't wrong. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that low-skilled wages for whites did suffer. If you increase the labor pool, without increasing the jobs, wages should go down.

3. Jobs probably do increase, over time. That's why arguments about comparative advantage and trade are convincing. But the problem is the "over time" part. Momentary dislocations can be a real problem for people (which is why things like unemployment benefits are good).

4. Trade may increase the aggregate wealth of the society, but I doubt that it keeps the the economic structure of the society the same. For example, there might be white journeyman baseball players who would be All-Stars except for Jackie Robinson, etc. For example, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find American programmers who said, "Let in all the foreign programmers you want, we'll be fine." Or the same with doctors, etc. These people have a huge sunk cost in their skills, which are pretty technical and not always easily transferrable to other fields, and while aggregate GNP may go up, their wages may suffer.

5. While the Deep South was pretty virulently racist, it isn't as if the rest of the country was a Disney movie. In fact, the Northern city I've traditionally heard labeled "racist" at the time (even by Bob Ryan) is that fabled liberal town of Boston. So I wouldn't want to lay all of the South's economic problems on racism. I believe it's more rural that the North, and more poorly educated generally.

But really, I think that I don't understand what stan was saying with the Ricardo comment, so I'm inferring a lot.

Good thread, interesting discussion, and all very civilized.

Thanks,
TJIT

Why be the "global policeman?" So that we can protect US businesses from other countries. Nationalize our oil companies? Die darkie scum. Nationalize our banana company plantations? Die darkie scum. Nationalize our sugar plantations? Eat blockades, darkie scum.

Being the global policeman is just another form of corporate welfare we as a country get brainwashed into doing to prop up the robber barons.

"The problem is that the white Americans didn't agree - they thought the Northerners were screwing them. "

People impacted by economic forces they don't understand looking for a convenient boogeyman? Say it isn't so!

"Similarly, if the US loses credibility with the rest of the world, particularly on grounds of fairness (whatever that means), it becomes more expensive for us to get people to move in the ways we want."

But if the other guys define "fairness" as "Americans wrong, other people right", then there's a hell of a cost associated with us going along with it. Sometimes "pretty please with a cherry on top" won't rectify that situation, no matter how much Democrats insist otherwise.

"If the Arab world hates us more now than before, it becomes harder/more expensive to get them to do as we'd like."

I really don't think that's possible. Like the Confederates, I think we'll have to sit on them for a century or so, try to keep them from causing too much trouble, get it through their thick skulls that we aren't going anywhere, and wait for the worst of the nutcases to die off.

"For example, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find American programmers who said, "Let in all the foreign programmers you want, we'll be fine." Or the same with doctors, etc. These people have a huge sunk cost in their skills, which are pretty technical and not always easily transferrable to other fields, and while aggregate GNP may go up, their wages may suffer."

As a programmer, I wouldn't say "we'll be fine" so much as "I don't really enjoy the prospect of facing myself in the mirror if my continued livelihood depends on my government requiring my customers to pass up someone who meets their needs better than I do.

Now my specific skills may not be transferable to other fields, but my mastery of this field may convince employers that I can similarly master some other field. That process would be easier if employers weren't subject to defending their hiring decisions in court and needing documentary evidence to prove to a jury (who isn't going to make or lose money on me) that I was the best one for the job. Also, some fields that I might like to migrate to have artificial barriers to entry that really shouldn't be there.

At any rate, unrestricted trade, within and across our borders, do make us all wealthier in the long run. Here "long run" is usually less than a decade. Given proper crime control in our cheap neighborhoods, we'll be better off weathering any dislocations and enjoying a wealthier world afterwards. Doing so will enable our children to enjoy a wealthier world when they grow up and move out, and give them a better start than trying to inflate our own income with trade restrictions (while everyone else is lobbying to do the same) and putting some of that excess into their college fund.

"Why be the "global policeman?" So that we can protect US businesses from other countries. Nationalize our oil companies? Die darkie scum. Nationalize our banana company plantations? Die darkie scum. Nationalize our sugar plantations? Eat blockades, darkie scum."

We've long reserved the right to exact retribution when a foreign government wantonly kills our nationals, at least since the run up to WWI when U-Boat sinkings got us so hot and bothered. It's not that much of a stretch for us to act when foreign governments steal from our nationals.

We were the only choice because no one else COULD have been. The European states simply didn't have the power. The USSR could obliterate half our citizens and could invade Europe, but couldn't project force anywhere we didn't let them. And it's not just military force. Oh, the critics all acclaim the latest European art film and there is anime (see SDB), but really, the whole world watches Hollywood films. People the world over eat McDonalds voluntarily [shudder]. Most technical symposia are in English. Nearly all drug innovations are from American companies, which the rest of the world then steal. While our foreign aid is small as a percentage, it's a HUGE inflow to the countries that receive it (if it isn't all stolen by the UN or African dictators).

So, the only question is why did WE do it, rather than return to isolationism.

First, there was Pearl Harbor. The oceans weren't wide enough to protect us against attack after all. Arthur Vandenberg recognized it, and many others did, too.

Second, there was the attitude of "finish the job." There is a story about young doughboy who scratched his name in a bunker in France in 1918, then again (as an officer) in 1944 and added "and that's the LAST time I want to be in this bunker." True or not, that illustrated the attitude that "they will just screw it up again and drag us into it again and we'll lose another quarter million boys."

Arguably, we had formed the first "anti-imperialist empire." We stationed troops in bases so that we would be safer from attack and then the states in which we had those bases wanted our help, so we formed more forward bases to protect THOSE places and then THEY needed defending... I don't want to carry the analogy too far, but it does sound a lot like Rome: "we'll just annex this one last province and THEN we'll have defensible borders."

Another point is television and the NGOs. It's one thing to read a newspaper report of thousands dying in Bengal or famine in Mali. It's a whole different thing to actually SEE children dying in Somalia. Damn it, we have to DO SOMETHING! Then, of course, those are using famine as a deliberate policy will try to harass or kill the people directly. So, then we send troops to defend our aid workers and the people being aided. Then, we start fighting the Leftists who gain power from creating the famine in the first place. We don't want to actually colonize the place, so let's find someone (usually some right-wing military type) who will fight them FOR us. Well, now we have to back him up, even though he's being rather repressive, or we'll lose the country (which we didn't want in the first place). Gee, the enemy is getting help from across the border. If we go in THERE, that will fix the problem and then THIS battle will be won and we can bring the boys home.

Actually, I'm more surprised that we DIDN'T build a bigger empire. We backed out of Lebanon. We fled Somalia. There is strong pressure to abandon Iraq. Of course, we remember abandoning all of SE Asia to the murderous communists. When the arab states stole the oil production assets from the companies that did all the work, we shrugged. When Castro stole from the companies there, we fiddled around with insurgents and such, but didn't actually make a short 90-mile invasion. We haven't done anything to Mexico despite all the trouble of illegals, drug-running, and criminals. When France kicked NATO out, we said "OK" and continued giving them (secret) help with their nuclear weapons program. When the communists took control of Nicaragua and threatened El Salvador, we dithered around for a DECADE when we could have invaded and fixed things in a few months. (sure...)

When the British Empire was tired and exhausted, it lined up the nations of the world.

"I need a volunteer to take over my job as world policeman", it said, "so when I turn my back, will whoever is willing and able please take one step forward." Ignoring the rustling sounds all around, the US stood there while the British Empire turned its back. When the BE turned back around the US was startled to discover all the other nations of the world had taken a step backwards. The BE took the US's hand, said "Thanks old boy, I'll help whenever I can" and that's how we got the job.

Im pretty amazed that so many here are so dismissive of the USSR and their sphere of influence. We were 20 years ahead of them tech wise, but their sheer number or warheads could have(and still could) end civilization as we know it. Imo, the only real US victory over the USSR was the Cuban missle crisis, and because of proximity, we really couldnt avoid confrontation there. We had NATO, they had the Warsaw Pact nations, and southeast Asia was were we played the game, with neither side a clear victor. The changes in Russia are mainly cultural and economic, but the truth is the same mobsters running Russia post Stalin still run Russia today. There is much better diplomacy between the US and Russia today, but thats mainly because it allows the Russians to loot the World Bank, and access to Western money. Bottom line, never bet against Russia as a home dog...

Quite a few responses are varieties of "However, it is an enormous overstatement to say we are the world's policeman. If that were the case we would be doing a lot more in various parts of the world."

I don't agree. We are pretty much the world's policeman, but like the real police we can't do everything. Good policing is best done in neighborhoods which also police themselves. And I hope no one is going to claim that the world is a neighborhood which is good at policing itself.

I really like Kevin Murphey's explanation...

But at least some sociologist make the case that the whole concept of "policeman" is new and oddly British. For most of history in most places, "all the king's men" were just the best armed thugs around. The Romans brought piece to New Testament Israel ... and are they honored as heros for the effort? Not hardly. Even England's folklore gives us "the sherriff of Nottingham" who was anything but an official of justice and equitably law. Shakespeare's Dogsberry the Constable was similarly an incompetent. And the officer appointed to enforce laws in "Measure for Measure" -- while he enforces the law the same upon all -- is the BAD GUY of the piece.

Javere in "Les Miserable"? Honorable, sure. A figure of justice, maybe? Not so much.

I challenge anybody to find a cultural icon where the "policeman", the constable, the sherrif, the guardsman -- even the judge -- who represents the temperate provider of law, justice, equity and sometimes mercy developed AFTER Robert Peel's "Bobbies" formed the modern model of a policeman.

Prior to Peel, British Law was enforced mostly the army, the "Redcoats". Soldiers rather than civilian authorities. This led to problems in places like, say Virginia, where Peyton Randolph, King's Attorney, had to call out the King's Guards to quell a riot among Virginians who had taken over the local armory (partly in fear of the Kings Guards. Vicious feedback.) Similar problems farther north, where snowball-throwing locals provoked the Redcoats into a killing response known later as the Boston Massacre, leading up to battles in Lexington and Concord ...

Having learned the lessons of Concord and Yorktown, Peel established a different kind of peace-keeping force for Ireland, one so successful it was replicated in London itself.
Civilians in uniform. Unarmed, for the most part. Recruited from and assigned to the locality. Policemen, not soldiers.

Given "Bobbies" or "Peelers", yes, the role of the whole British Empire became analogously law-bound, temperate, and civil. And yes, as the British Empire faltered the United States -- having grown up in the shelter of that Empire and accustomed to culturally English notions of human rights, common law, and and reasonable enforcement of norms -- the US took up the role the British vacated.

Anyhow, then, endorsing Murphey, the answer to the question "Who made the US the world's policema?" is "Robert Peel".

The old colonial empires were built on mercantilist eonomics. The colonies supply raw materials, the home country provides finished poducts. It suceeded some ways that boil down to this: Independent governments in the subject nations might do stupid government things that would hurt everybody and reduce the total wealth, but subordinate governments would not. Better to have one government doing stupid government tricks than many governments competing at that.

But after WWII the USA didn't need colonies. It wasn't just that the former colonies were awash in machine guns, and had ideas about nationalism, and would be far more expensive to govern than they used to be. The USA had a collection of third world nations that were already conquered, whose nationalism had mostly died down, that were subject to US law, where the natives more-or-less spoke english. I refer to the american south.

My father was among the youngest of a large family and he was late having his children. My grandfather grew up with whale-oil lamps and tallow candles. The home my 4-year-old father helped to build ;) had a fireplace in each room, my father's older brothers chopped firewood mornings while he milked the cow. Things changed, and they changed the most starting in the 1950's. When my grandfather died in the same house it had electricity, a telephone, central heat, a connection to a sewer system and water works, and a TV. My grandfather plowed with a mule. My uncle bought a small tractor to plow small plots with his nephews and nieces, as a pastime.

Investors who invested in the american south had no concern that their businesses would be nationalised, no concern about tariffs, less concern about unions than in the north, no worry about communists, and when they bribed government officials it was by choice and not something the officials demanded for normal services.

Also it was widely believed that investment in technology would pay off better than investment in developing countries.

Sure, the Marines went on working for United Fruit, and the CIA tried to keep latin american governments from nationalising US investments, but it was a side issue. United Fruit could get their way when nobody else cared, but it was because nobody else cared.

What was more important was that a lot of our investment in technology was for the military. Military research was easier to fund, and military development got funded too. We had to be ready to beat the Russians. So we had to catch up anywhere they were ahead and maintain our lead wherever they were behind. And we needed to test our new equipment in combat, while the russians were arming client states. So we wanted to defeat soviet clients and help our friends. But we didn't need to tell our friends how to run their own governments -- provided they didn't make us think they'd rather be soviet clients. If they made stupid trade decisions it hurt them worse than it hurt us. We didn't need their trade, foreign trade was less than 5% of our total.

So for example the north vietnamese had a theory that when colonialists saw they couldn't possibly make a profit they would leave, and we had a theory that when the nationalists saw that they lost too many casualties they would give up, and we went on far beyond any possible profit -- because we weren't colonialists.

But our oil production peaked in the 1970's and foreign trade has kept getting more important to us. We insist on free trade as an economic ideal, but governments inevitably distort the economics. The chinese government is propping up the dollar, they keep dollars valuable by pegging the dollar to the renminbi. So US exports are expensive and our imports are cheap, our employment is low. The chinese have to pay to do that. If they let the currencies reach their own balance they would have cheaper imports, they could work less and get more rewards. The chinese government doesm't seem to mind that their citizens have to work harder for less while ours go into debt buying stuff while they are underemployed.

The rules have changed and our responses will have to change too.

Time,

Your example actually supports my position. The South didn't prosper when relationships were exploitative and did prosper (to everyone's benefit) when the exploitation ended. I don't want to get into a long discussion of how accurate or not your example of the South is, so let's just run with the basic premise -- exploitation is not optimal in the long run.

We don't conquer and colonize the rest of the world because it is not in our best interest to do so. Colonies require far more expense (of all kinds) and produce less benefit. Helping other countries build healthy democracies and strong economies is best for them and best for us.

It isn't at all about power. It is about optimizing our return at lower cost. And it is not a zero sum game.

...SomeCallMeTim speculated:

'I think you'd be hard-pressed to find
American programmers who said, "Let in
all the foreign programmers you want,
we'll be fine."'

Funny you should say that. In fact, today
at lunch, an American programmer said EXACTLY
that.

I was the American programmer.

Geeks in India are paid what, 1/10th or 1/20th
of what we make here. If UNLIMITED PROGRAMMER
immigration was allowed I would imagine those
same Indian programmers would expect to be paid
what we American programmers are paid. And
since the work is being done in India now,
it could just as well be done here in the
States. By considerably higher paid programmers.

Of course its obvious from reading many of
SomeCallMeTim comments that he is a doctrinaire
Marxist. I guess he supports the true economic
superiority of the Soviet Union too. uh....
message to SomeCallMeTim: your guiding philosophy
fails utterly whereever it is tried. I suggest
you try using your brains instead of simply
regurgitating the pap you learned from your
leftist profs.

We became a superpower because it was an extension of the race to win WWII. We had atomic weapons and an industrial base unscathed by the ravages of war. We were in the lead, and fear began to spread about falling behind.

Korea. Sputnik.

Call it our competitive nature. Call it capitalism. Call it flee or fight.

Whatever.

It became the arms race. The liberal-democratic global capitalism versus evil communism empire race.

Once we were in a race with the USSR (and arguably China), the spectators picked sides.

Call it the Ghostbusters effect. Who ya gonna call?

We won the Cold War race. We won the global economic-military 1000lb. gorilla superpower trophy.

Now what?

Stan:

1. You say, at base, it isn't about power. I say it is. I point out how unhappy people were at the apparent Japanese economic power in the 80s, and suggest that most of the groups from whom the Brits choose their leaders would prefer to go back to a time when they were a serious world power, even if it meant giving up substantial GNP. Choose the argument you find more convincing, I guess - I'm not sure (a) what evidence you would need to change your mind, or (b) what evidence you're offering in support of your position.

2. "We don't conquer and colonize the rest of the world because it is not in our best interest to do so. Colonies require far more expense (of all kinds) and produce less benefit."

I agree 100% - one of the reasons I don't want to get stuck in Iraq is that I think it will be a money suck. All empires end from the same thing - overextension. I think that you don't really need strong control over countries to get them to do what you want - you just need to bribe the right people, offer the right incentive, etc. I don't, however, think it's useful to pretend that it is always to our advantage to promote democracy, fairness, decency, and ice cream. We have supported some remarkable bastards in our time, and shut our mouths about others. (Somosa, Duvalier, Hussein, and Musharraf (as head of military coup), for example). And we weren't necessarily wrong to do so. I note that there are reasonable people who say (a) we wouldn't really like the government a truly democratic Iraq might pick (one of the reason al-Sadr is barred from politics), and (b) we wouldn't really like the government a democratic Saudi would pick. I think these people make pretty good points; you don't. A pick'em, perhaps - again I don't know what would convince you, or what evidence you are offering to show that we always support democracy and freedom.

3. I'm sorry to obtuse about this, but I don't see how the repeal of the Jim Crow laws follows naturally and directly from (or is caused by) the law of comparative advantage ("a country that trades for products that it can get at lower cost from another country is better off than if it had made the products at home"). And does this mean the civil rights movement was (a) not important to the repeal, or (b) itself is a natural result of comparative advantage? I sort of see a glimmer of what you're saying, but I think there are other more important pieces, and then, suddenly, I just can't really see it. Please sketch it out. Thanks.

Pragamatist:

Over the long-term, I think there would be a new equilibrium price set for Indian and American programmers, and, who knows, it might be higher than otherwise. But surely over the short term, increasing supply means decreasing price the buyers will pay. This doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. And, as I said before, the short term can be important when you have (a) kids, (b) a spouse, (c) a mortgage, and (d) all manner of other fixed obligations.

"And since the work is being done in India now,
it could just as well be done here in the
States. By considerably higher paid programmers."

I don't understand these sentences at all. The incentive to move work from cheaper India to more expensive here is that it could be done here?

This thread makes Umberto Echo seem as focused as a laser beam. I dont think we are the worlds policeman. That title suggests an altruism and a caring for mankind that would have turned our attention to current global injustices that far exceed Iraq under Saddam, like the Sudan or Sierra Leone(sp). I think the whole worlds policeman tone from the right is a result of not finding wmd in Iraq. We now need to have a moral excuse to be in Iraq, so some attempt to shift the argument to label Iraq a humanitarian effort, with the US occupation being for the good of the Iraqi people, rather than the failed search for wmd it was.

Some things worth looking over; IF fact-checking or any discrediting is required, it would be welcome (in other words, PROVE them wrong):

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000659.html

http://www.zmag.org/grossmanciv.htm

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000065.html

http://www.killinghope.org

[snip]
Table of Contents

Introduction to the new edition
Introduction to the original edition
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims
another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy
planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's
orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the
high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous
new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy
from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ...
and 500,000 others ...... East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped
on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your
Constitution," said the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara
in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not
be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of
great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth
industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists
what democracy is all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this
turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present
Notes
Appendix I: This is How the Money Goes Round
Appendix II: Instances of Use of United States Armed
Forces Abroad, 1798-1945
Appendix III: U. S. Government Assassination Plots
Index
[snip]

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/myth.htm
[snip]
If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -– oddly enough -– a foreign country. Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions and sanctions. There would be enough money. One year of our military budget is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year.
[snip]

"Debate on United States foreign policy"
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/debate.htm
[snip]
Here is a short summary of what Washington has been engaged in from the end of World War II to the present:

>> Attempting to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments.
>> Unprovoked military invasion of some 20 sovereign nations.
>> Working to crush more than 30 populist movements which were fighting against dictatorial regimes.
>> Providing indispensable support to a small army of brutal dictatorships: Mobutu of Zaire, Pinochet of Chile, Duvalier of Haiti, Somoza of Nicaragua, the Greek junta, Marcos of the Philippines, Rhee of Korea, the Shah of Iran, 40 years of military dictators in Guatemala, Suharto of Indonesia, Hussein of Iraq, the Brazilian junta, Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Taliban of Afghanistan, and others.
>> Dropping powerful bombs on the people of about 25 countries, including 40 consecutive days and nights in Iraq, 78 days and nights in Yugoslavia, and several months in Afghanistan, all three of these countries having met the first requirement as an American bombing target -- being completely defenseless. And not once ever has the United States come even close to repairing the great damage caused by its bombings. Afghanistan and Iraq are of course the latest examples.
>> Increasing use of depleted uranium, one of the most despicable weapons ever designed by mankind, which produces grossly deformed babies amongst its many endearing qualities, and which, in a civilized world not intimidated by the United States, would be categorically banned.
>> Repeated use of cluster bombs, another fiendish device designed by a mad scientist, which has robbed numerous young people of one or more limbs, and some of their eyesight, and continues to do so every day in many countries as the bombs remain on the ground.
>> Assassination attempts on the lives of some 40 foreign political leaders.
>> Crude interference in dozens of foreign democratic elections.
>> Gross manipulation of labor movements.
>> Shameless manufacture of "news", the disinformation effect of which is multiplied when CIA assets in other countries pick up the same stories.
>> Providing handbooks, materials and encouragement for the practice of torture.
>> Chemical or biological warfare or the testing of such weapons, and the use of powerful herbicides, all causing terrible effects to the people and environments of China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia and elsewhere.
>> Encouragement of drug trafficking in various parts of the world when it served the CIA's purposes.
>> Supporting death squads, particularly in Latin America.
>> Causing grievous harm to the health and well-being of the world's masses by turning the screws of the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and other international financial institutions, as well as by imposing unmerciful sanctions and embargoes.
>> Much of the above has led to millions of refugees wandering homeless over the earth.

And what do those who champion the mystique of "America" offer in defense of this record? Well, denial is the first line of defense -- Well-known and respected foreign policy analysts in the United States write entire books on American foreign policy with little more than a hint of what I've just mentioned. When all else fails, they fall back on the argument that "The United States means well." It may sometimes blunder, even occasionally do a bit more harm than good as things turn out ... but the intention is always benevolent.
[snip]

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/parenti.htm

http://members.aol.com/superogue/sorry.htm

Before I say more, I would first like at least an attempt at analysis at the historicity or *veracity* of these sources.

Thanks you.

The most interesting aspects of this thread is how little seems to address the impact of popular cultural trends on the decision to remain active active in the decade after WW2. Like the decisions to retreat made after WW1, the decisions made after WW2 seemed to be substantially supported, if not motivated, by the popular cultural movements of the time. But this time the United States decided to face outwards and not turn inwards. I would like to suggest three elements of this that have not yet been considered in the thread.

There was a recognition through much better and different communications that the damage done during the conflict had reached far beyond the armies into the civilian lives of the combatants and was more lasting. There was radio to convey immediately what was happening in ways that weren't present in 1919. Hundreds of thousands of American families, if not millions, were motivated to send CARE packages to those in need. What was sent made a difference to the recipients, to be sure, but the act of participation in the giving connected those families and the children in those families to the rest of the world in ways that were further stimulated by the growth of those global communications connections. The connection of children to real events in the countries on the maps of their classrooms is something worthy of further exploration.

Another impulse that must be considered to have shaped the American reaction to the world was the expansionist conduct of the Communists in many communities in middle and eastern Europe. The real connections of many Americans to their immigrant past and those countries seemed to have motivated some of the push for a continued American involvement and support for the neutralization of any left-wing effort in the cities and unions of the United States to keep the United States disengaged.

In 1946 there were still strong radical left movements in many industrial trade unions and strong leftward movements on college campuses,remnants of the YCLs and YSLs of the 30s; ten years later these are gone. The UE, one of the strongest of the radical left unions, disappears/is displaced; the Liberal Party emerges in New York City to take over the progressive mantle worn by Vito Marcantonio and the American Labor Party. Clearly, the support for this displacement was not universal, by any means, but the support for a more progressive agenda was submerged by a fear of the consequences of the left.

And, without question, the strong opposition of the Catholic hierarchy in the United States to the spread of ' godless communism' motivated many a Sunday sermon. A Father Coughlin calling for neutrality and disengagement had no voice in the 40s and 50s.

Some will argue that the masses were manipulated in their views by robber barons and/or war mongers.But for those who spent their childhood in the period, the communication of need and the clear delineation of the difference in action led many to support a more assertive American role to preserve a world sense of well being and freedom in an era that suggested that there were few others that would or could do the job. In many ways, the Vietnam experience was the product of that support for action in the 40s and early 50s.

All of this may contribute to the explanation of why we took up the role of the 'world's policeman'. The more significant questions are when will we put it down and what will it mean when we do.

We may have already put down the mantle. If we have learned anything from Iraq, it is that there is very little stomach in the Gore states and the idea elites centered there for any kind of conflict and suffering. The idea elites do not seem to have any staying power for conflict. Its aftermath leaves them very cold. They do not seem particularly motivated to personal action by suffering in such places as the Sudan. If they can't be motivated by that suffering, for what will they be willing to expend their own blood to defend? One doesn't even see them raising money to alleviate the suffering, albeit some would have the United States spend opm to do so. Where will the protests be held to ask the United States to actively intervene in the Sudan or the next Rwanda?

There is also the question of resources. The price will have to be paid at some point for the flagrant overspending that is reflected in our cumulative, corporate and personal, debt statistic, the national governmental deficit, and the trade imbalance deficit ( it would be interesting to track the relative percentages of the Bush tax cuts that go to the Gore states and how much of the net deficits/debt end up benefiting those who live in the Gore states).

For now, Asian countries seem willing to buy American sovereign debt so that we can afford guns and butter and their exports. What happens sometime during the next decade when the merry-go-round stops? What will we be able to afford when the inevitable dollar devaluation ( formal or informal) reduces what we have to spend on overseas efforts? Who then will be the world's policeman? Why will they pick up the challenge? And what will they charge for the job?

Mr. Socrates misses a very important point in his litany. The fight in eastern and middle Europe was about elections and democracy. He might not have liked the American investment in the Greek and Italian elections, but he equally cannot ignore the refusal of the Soviet Union to allow free elections and their consequences in those parts of middle and eastern Europe that they controlled by force. There is little evidence that the Soviet supporters would have won in free elections anywhere during the 40s and the 50s.This is certainly the case after the eastern German revolt in 1953 and the Hungarian revolt in 1956.

Mr. Socrates also misses a very important point about the current world circumstance. The appeal of the radicals is against the growth of globalization and its consequences. The United States may be the central focus of their attempt to stop it, but it is the worldwide collapse of distance and difference that is what motivates the fear. How can you protect your values in a world in which every child has a Playstation and knows who Tony Hawk is? At the end of the day Al-Jazeera is a part of the problem for the Moslem fundamentalists, not part of the solution. Anything that better connects people and reduces difference will hurt their cause.

Stan, I wouldn't say that exploitation ended in the south. It took different forms.

A whole lot of wealth came in, in the early 1950's. Mechanised agriculture. The sharecroppers who had done cheap nonmechanised agriculture were no longer needed and they were pushed off the land, a lot of them wound up in northern cities where they at first had to go on welfare.

A lot of new business, new industry moved south, and it disrupted the old cultural patterns. Yankee managers came south and people had to defer to them and learn how to respond to them.

The old caste system was breaking down. The old system was at carrying capacity. It produced more people than it had places for, and the excess had to leave one way or another. Blacks were only allowed to do nigger work but nobody else was allowed to do it, so whatever happened they wouldn't all get pushed out. Now some of their old jobs were gone and whites were getting much better-paying jobs than before. There was more than enough to go around and they wanted their share. And because the money was coming in so fast, they could get more without anybody else having to get less.

In adopting a technology-driven system we assumed we would never again reach carrying-capacity, that there would always be jobs.

Anyway, my point is that after WWII building up the american south soaked up enough effort that the USA didn't need other colonies that would be worse -- language problems and government problems. And our belief in technology implied that we got more profit investing in that than in foreign colonies anyway. So economic colonies tended to be afterthoughts to us, and our fights tended to be over ideology and to test our newest military gadgets, etc. Fighting communists was a big deal. Growing more cassava per acre on big cassava plantations was not a big deal.

I realize this is *completely* off-topic, but the South didn't industrialize solely because of the end of Jim Crow; the South industrialized because Lyndon Johnson required that NASA build all of its major facilities in the South in return for his support of the space program.

Pontius Socrates,

Don't forget about the Trilateral Commission and the Illuminati, which support and are supported by the US! And remember to change your tinfoil hat several times a day so the CIA can't influence you with their mind control beams.

Your brother in the struggle,
DRB

The historical look at the US as supposed global cop is intresting and you can play battle of the links on this topic forever. But whats more intresting is looking at todays world and examine how we ended up playing cop this time.

We never agreed. It was foisted on us because we have a large military budget. We had a large military budget cuz of the Cold War, and, unlike the Soviets, had an economy that could afford it.

What happened once the Cold War ended? Well, consider the question of why we spend so much on defense spending yet have a military that is severely undermanned and poorly equipped. That isn't how the hawks want the military to look. They want us to be able to efficiently take out whomever we want to take out. But the military isn't allocating its money in such a way to get the best fighting force, but instead to buy the most expensive toys. Who does that benefit?

That's right, the toy sellers. After the Cold War, we had many rich industries who had a vested interest in the government continuing to spend a lot of money on defense. And, of course, those industries have the means to influence government greatly.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/senex_holmes/28372.html

More than any other people, Americans are inclined to believe that God helps those who help themselves. And we extend the principles to others. Thus we are not inclined to trust others to protect us, and we try to facilitate others taking care of themselves (rather than being dependent on us). Other countries are more likely to feel otherwise, and take advantage of this.

Yes, counterexamples abound, but there's something to it.

Simple, really. We want to keep what we have. We have the most to lose by far from a collapse of international trade and civility. We'd still end up on top, but our standard of living would suffer tremendously. It is a kind of insurance against castastrophe. Sometimes the premiums go up a bit, and we do take losses from time to time, but the enterprise as a whole keeps progressing.

(Not bothering to read the first 70 comments, so perhaps someone else has already mentioned this.)

Part II, as to why we didn't become a true empire, it is because at some level we really do believe what the Declaration of Independence says with respect to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can get the populace to accept some losses and premium increases when these are threatened for us but it is damned hard to convince them to fork over more money or human assets to take it away from somebody else. This was even true to some extent in the 19th century, for what that's worth.

Yes, from a certain perspective the Space Program was a Civil War Reparations prgram. The last stage of reconstruction. Which has a lot to do with why our capabilites are so far behind what they should be.

Eric:

Eh? What does "Which has a lot to do with why our capabilites are so far behind what they should be" mean? Does "our" refer to the South (things should have been done sooner) or to the space program (we didn't locate it where the best talent pool was available)?

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the military-industrial complex. WWII essentially left the military in the driver's seat of the SUV that is the federal government. The Cold war gave them a good excuse to keep spending trillions on defense. The problem with making all those bullets and bombs and missiles is that if they don't get used we don't have to buy anymore. So we have to manufacture crises (crisises?) as well. Everytime the stockpile gets a bit too high we have ourselves a little war and everybody's happy again. Mostly we pick and choose the war that is in our best interest at the time. When a couple million people in Africa get killed we don't do anything because Africa doesn't really have anything that interests us. But when a country that has a bunch of oil in it does something we don't like Pass The Ammunition Brother!

Well, that last point is a little disingenuous because Korea didn't have oil, Vietnam didn't have oil, Grenada didn't have oil,and all Panama had was a little canal, but you get the general idea. We are the world's policeman because the guys that make the bullets are running the govmint. And just because I wear a tinfoil hat doesn't mean I'm not right. See also: ad hominem.

In 1954, the French gave up in Vietnam, after losing to Ho Chi Mingh, the successful Vietnamese general (who had also fought the Japanese, and the French before the War). Ho was a communist.

In 1956, the USA refused to accept a democratic election in Vietnam, because of expectations that they would vote communist, and SE Asia.

The USA decided that being anti-communist was more important than being pro-democracy, or pro-human rights. We began to act as the World's policeman, and nobody else was willing to do it -- the Soviets were supporting, on the cheap, anti-dictatorship anti-West commies.

The US was right, and good, to oppose the Evil Empire. The Euro Dems were weak, and welfare greedy; but really on any US vs USSR issue, disagreement with the US means support for the USSR. Euros didn't want that; so choosing cheap military irrelevance is reasonable.

Finally, the post WW II aid agencies (World Bank as well as many NGOs) were worse than bad, their constant support for big gov't boondoggle projects virtually always supported gov't corruption, large and petty, and no poor people can develop without "tolerable justice". Property rights and honest courts, far more important than big dams or even power plants. So no other underdeveloped area could assist the US in police work.

In the current Iran nuke cheating -- don't a lot of folk think, openly or secretly, that Israel will do the dirty work of taking out Iran's illegal reactors? Why them, not us.

Everybody's willing to free ride when they can get away with it.

Comments are Closed.