Share this Mister Wong Webnews Power-Oldie Linkarena Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Jumptags Upchuckr Simpy StumbleUpon Slashdot Netscape Furl Yahoo Blogmarks Diigo Technorati Newsvine Googlize this Blinklist Facebook Wikio Meneame Diggita Export PDF Print E-mail

Right now, the United States has troops in 130 countries. Over and above the forces already in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, sizeable troop contingents are on station in South Korea, Germany, and Great Britain. Many of these highly trained men and women serve under either open or semi-secret United Nations jurisdiction.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has just pledged to help Indonesia build a more modern military arm. There seems to be no end to the determination of U.S. leaders to extend the nation's already obvious role as the world's policeman. Having already involved our nation in numerous conflicts we should have avoided (e.g., Ethiopia, Bosnia, Kosovo), the presence of U.S. forces and our government's intention to supply arms all over the globe threatens to involve our troops in more deadly situations, not fewer.

A question must be asked: Why should our country maintain a military arm? The only answer that makes any sense is that we have a military force to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the American people, the people who pay for it. That's all! Not to intervene when two factions in some far-off nation start killing each other. Not to decide it is America's right and duty to decide what type of government exists in some foreign land. And not to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions — which is the incredibly wrong justification that was employed for sending our forces into Iraq.

When the U.S. Senate voted to place our nation in the United Nations in 1945, its members did so by approving the United Nations Charter. Article 25 of that document states: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." Doesn't that trump the U.S. Constitution? It's hard to believe that any U.S. senator would agree to that, but 89 senators did and only two refused. If you ever needed a reason why the U.S. should withdraw from the UN, you now have it.

A strong military force that is well known for its ability to respond to any attack is the best way to ensure that we won't be attacked. With ready ability to move men and matériel anywhere on the planet in a matter of days, our troops don't have to be stationed abroad. Keeping them home is monetarily and diplomatically sound policy. Getting them out from under UN subservience is imperative. While it's obviously true that most UN member nations don't "carry out the decisions of the Security Council," U.S. leaders have made doing so a practice ever since responding to a Security Council resolution in 1950 that saw our nation send forces to Korea.

Over recent years, the United States has gone from being the most respected nation on Earth to one of the most detested. Our meddling in the affairs of other nations has helped mightily to bring this about. Bringing the troops home, and never sending them into war without a formal declaration by Congress as required by the Constitution, would both repair our nation's image and keep us out of deadly squabbles where we don't belong.