Should the U.S. Still Police the World?
I'll be debating the topic in New York City next month alongside Matt Taibbi.
With ongoing wars around the world from Eastern Europe to the Middle East, and more threatening to break out any day, it is more urgent than ever that we clarify our country’s role on the world stage.
Does the United States still possess the will to protect our allies and defend the values of liberal democracy? Are we still capable of military interventions that are strategically sound and beneficial to global stability? Should we try to wrestle back the superpower status that we feel is waning, or should we just let it go?
On October 9th in New York City, The Free Press is proud to host a debate on U.S. foreign policy—and to welcome four brilliant people to hash out the question: Should the U.S. Still Police the World?
Bret Stephens and Jamie Kirchick will face off against Matt Taibbi and Lee Fang. Bari Weiss will moderate.
For tickets, see here.
It's quite clear that we no longer have the credibility as a peacemaker to "police" the world -- we're a weapons dealer supplying weapons to more than a hundred nations, and currently funding two wars with no end on sight.
Having the U S. police the world is a little like asking Jesse and Frank James to watch over the bank.
"Does the United States still possess the will to protect our allies and defend the values of liberal democracy? Are we still capable of military interventions that are strategically sound and beneficial to global stability? Should we try to wrestle back the superpower status that we feel is waning, or should we just let it go?" LOL, could they have framed it more tendentiously? Even so I almost feel bad for Stephens and Kirchik.