I specifically posted my thoughts without reading any of what I'm sure are good responses. My very first thoughts were:Originally Posted by MikeF
No one has the responsibility to protect the people of the world. They have the responsibility to protect themselves, inasmuch as they self-identify as a tribe, a sect, a state with recognized borders, etc.
You want protection? Form alliances and pacts with stronger or peer neighbors, as with NATO or the Arab League. Don't start sh*t you can't or don't want to finish, when somebody bigger comes around and doesn't like what you started. Get up off of your knees and defend yourself, even it requires every fiber of being and the last breath of every able-bodied man and woman.
The notion of protection is slippery, and has been used as the thin veil to cover outright aggression, genocide, and miscalculation on the part of countless nations that have started conflicts. It has also dragged countless states into conflict over issues that they felt were theirs to champion, and where they felt they were protecting something or someone from aggression.
Those were my first thoughts, but I realize that it would have to be a perfect world sort of situation, and I know the world doesn't turn that way as much as I'd like.
The more I thought about it (across, oh, say 30 minutes of watching Wheel of Fortune with my two youngest), I think the question needs to get turned on its head a bit. I think the premise of protecting people comes from some internal wiring that drives the thought that we can (or should at least strive to) achieve Utopia, where there are no haves and have-nots, and where there are no wars if everyone can just get along. That wiring also believes that we can influence other aggressive actors through action, deterrence, etc., and make the root causes of that aggression go away somehow.
Then I went back to the classic adage that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and I remembered my realism theory roots. We will not achieve utopia and states and actors will always attempt to change the environment to improve their position relative to a competitor state. The same can apply to races, sects, etc., I believe.
Protecting people of the world only has true relevance when there is any bearing on our national interests. The rest is just grist for the mills of pundits, politicians, and fools.
The question that needs to be asked first is "why?" Only then can we ask "who?"
Is there a letter "T"?
Bookmarks