Who is the World’s Policeman if Not the US?

Most Americans are horrified at the prospect of giving up any of their “sovereignty” to the United Nations. “Nobody’s gonna tell us what to do,” they insist.

So where does that leave the world?

It seems to me that the United States is obligated to fill the vacuum created by the UN’s weakness: Americans must accept the responsibility of policing the world if they will not let the UN do it.

That’s what the British did in the era before the UN – when Britannia ruled the waves.

And that seems to have been the prevailing U.S. strategy of the past half century. America has spent more on arms than the rest of the world combined, and has maintained hundreds of military bases in far-flung corners of the earth.

In many instances, the United States has intervened to redress perceived wrongs in other “sovereign” nations (click here for a history of U.S. interventions.)

But now, the policy seems to have changed.

Americans still pay to maintain a huge military presence around the world, but they are balking at the cost – in money and lives – of being the world’s policeman.

As I write this blog, Egyptians are thronging the streets of Cairo, demanding reform. The army has just come out in support of the despised dictator, Hosni Mubarak (pictured above, in less turbulent times, welcoming President Obama to Cairo). By “the army,” read America for the Egyptian army is trained, armed and funded by Uncle Sam.

We seem to be on the verge of a massacre in Egypt – carried out by American trained troops using weapons provided by America.

As ‘the leader of  the free world,” America seems to have a responsibility to step in and prevent the blood bath.  But so far, the Obama Administration is holding back.

Meanwhile, the silence from the United Nations is deafening.

It looks as if all hell is about to break loose.

Nature abhors a vacuum.