America No Longer Wants To Be the Policeman of the World
No one today wants to take responsibility for the entire world. Americans have simply learned already that it's impossible, says Grzegorz Kostrzewa-Zorbas, political scientist, lecturer at the Military University of Technology in Warsaw and publicist for the weekly magazine “W Sieci.”
Americans are planning a reduction of their armed forces to a pre-World War II condition. Is that a good idea?
Grzegorz Kostrzewa-Zorbas: Such a reduction would not be as significant as it may seem at first glance, because it would only concern the United States Army and not the entire United States Armed Forces. It should be remembered that the term “United States Army” has changed its meaning, since before the war this included the Air Force. Today, however, the Air Force is a separate branch than the Army and — similarly to the Navy — it will not be subjected to financial cuts.
Is it even at all possible to compare the United States’ defense capacity before the war and today?
Even after carrying out the plan involving significant cuts, the combined potential U.S. military, also measured by the number of people, would remain greater than 80 years ago. And the combat ability of U.S. troops is even greater; there are many types of weapons and equipment — take satellites for example — which did not exist then, but are a part of the military power of the United States today.
America no longer wants to be the “policeman of the world”?
Americans have not wanted to be the “policeman of the world”; they rarely use that term, and if they do, it's with irony. They want — that is, both the Obama administration and the mainstream Republicans — an even greater U.S. role in the world, but focused on other priorities. Nobody today wants to take responsibility for the whole world. Americans have simply learned already that it's impossible.
Does the United States spend amounts proportional to its interests around the world on defense?
It does not spend enough. Recent reductions in defense spending have actually been results of a coincidence. The Obama administration has incorporated them into a temporary budget bill, thinking that the threat of such large cuts will encourage parties to compromise. Meanwhile, the proposed military budget was unexpectedly approved and it is being carried out. Even so, the percentage of GDP spent on the military and defense is much higher in the U.S. than in other NATO countries.
But as much as three times lower than in the ‘50s under President Eisenhower …
That is true, but the world has changed a lot. Expenses of those times are not necessary now, although a level higher than the current, say, by half, would be most beneficial.
Interview by Agnieszka Kalinowska.
Americans are planning a reduction of their armed forces to a pre-World War II condition. Is that a good idea?
Grzegorz Kostrzewa-Zorbas: Such a reduction would not be as significant as it may seem at first glance, because it would only concern the United States Army and not the entire United States Armed Forces. It should be remembered that the term “United States Army” has changed its meaning, since before the war this included the Air Force. Today, however, the Air Force is a separate branch than the Army and — similarly to the Navy — it will not be subjected to financial cuts.
Is it even at all possible to compare the United States’ defense capacity before the war and today?
Even after carrying out the plan involving significant cuts, the combined potential U.S. military, also measured by the number of people, would remain greater than 80 years ago. And the combat ability of U.S. troops is even greater; there are many types of weapons and equipment — take satellites for example — which did not exist then, but are a part of the military power of the United States today.
America no longer wants to be the “policeman of the world”?
Americans have not wanted to be the “policeman of the world”; they rarely use that term, and if they do, it's with irony. They want — that is, both the Obama administration and the mainstream Republicans — an even greater U.S. role in the world, but focused on other priorities. Nobody today wants to take responsibility for the whole world. Americans have simply learned already that it's impossible.
Does the United States spend amounts proportional to its interests around the world on defense?
It does not spend enough. Recent reductions in defense spending have actually been results of a coincidence. The Obama administration has incorporated them into a temporary budget bill, thinking that the threat of such large cuts will encourage parties to compromise. Meanwhile, the proposed military budget was unexpectedly approved and it is being carried out. Even so, the percentage of GDP spent on the military and defense is much higher in the U.S. than in other NATO countries.
But as much as three times lower than in the ‘50s under President Eisenhower …
That is true, but the world has changed a lot. Expenses of those times are not necessary now, although a level higher than the current, say, by half, would be most beneficial.
Interview by Agnieszka Kalinowska.
I’m afraid that their (The US) role has caused too many deaths in their ongoing pretext for oil and commercial domination . . . generally involving small defenseless countries . . .