THE WORLD'S POLICEMAN

The message was unmistakeable, the image unforgettable: "crowds of angry Liberians dumping mutilated bodies at the embassy's front gates in a gruesome plea for help" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/22/03). One screams, "Tell George Bush to come now to rescue us; why are you letting us die?" Another voice in the crowd: "America, do something; is it because we have no oil?"

Corrupt leaders, rampant bloodshed, and total anarchy are par for the course in most of Africa. Liberia, having been founded by former American slaves, has closer ties to the US than most African nations; but it is merely one of many turfed by famine, civil war, and economic ruin.

Whether or not the US should (as in, has a moral obligation) or ought to (as in, it's in its best interests) be the world's policeman is not the subject of this post (although I personally think the answer to both of those questions is yes). In summarizing the bloody scene and excerpting those quotes, I merely point out that regardless of whether or not we ourselves see ourselves in that role or want to be in that role, much of the world sees us in that role.

Much of the world is under the destabilizing influence of political corruption, tribal warfare, and economic impotence. People in the US made noise about the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and then wondered why the whole world didn't feel bad for them. People in turfed countries suffer under far worse and then wonder why the US won't come to its rescue. At this point, I'm not passing any moral judgments here; just making some observations.