Response To Student Discussion Question Peters Commented

Response To Student Adiscussion Question Peters Commented That The

Discussion question: Peters commented that "The prospect of smaller-scale conflicts also raises the question of whether the United States should be the global police officer or merely one more nation in the international community." State your opinion and support it with one citation. Conflicts may be of a large scale or small-scale nature. The resolution of conflicts amongst nations depends on the capacity of the concerned nations, as well as the resolving party. The United States has often been considered superior to the other smaller nations, in which the conflicts often erupt. However, diverse parties treat the policing role of the United States over other countries differently (Modarressy, 2014).

My opinion on the issue is that the United States is justified in offering guidance to the other countries in as far as the resolution of conflicts is concerned. Critics may oppose the role of the United States in resolving smaller scale conflicts but it is evident that its role cannot be wished away. The management of conflicts requires some degree of order and establishment of a single unit of command attains such order. In this case, the source of command should solely be the United States because of its relatively higher stature compared to the other nations (Modarressy, 2014). Moreover, it is very influential worldwide and thus it is in a better position in matters of conflict resolution among nations.

The United States hardly reports cases of conflicts and effectively and peacefully resolves them if any. This is as opposed to the other smaller nations, which are usually overwhelmed by their conflicts, find themselves in dire need of external help, and often resolve to subjugation as their way of resolving conflicts (Modarressy, 2014). It is evident that the United States has to play a supervisory role over the smaller states as it has proved to have experience and undisputed expertise in conflict resolution of its own conflict. The effects of such experience are the easy handling of smaller conflicts.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over whether the United States should continue acting as the global police officer or adopt a more restrained role within the international community has been ongoing for decades. Proponents argue that America's unique capabilities, influence, and experience in conflict resolution position it to effectively manage both small-scale and large-scale conflicts worldwide. Critics, however, contend that such involvement often leads to overreach, unintended consequences, and neglect of domestic issues. This paper explores the justification for U.S. involvement in conflict resolution, examining the arguments for its leadership role and the concerns against worldwide policing, supported by scholarly perspectives and historical context.

Historically, the United States has positioned itself as a dominant force in world affairs, often intervening in conflicts under the premise of promoting peace, stability, and democracy. Advocates for continued U.S. leadership in global conflict resolution emphasize its unmatched military and diplomatic capabilities, extensive experience, and moral authority to guide smaller or less capable nations through conflicts. According to Modarressy (2014), the U.S. has demonstrated a capacity for peaceful conflict resolution and has often successfully managed internal and external disputes, granting it a supervisory role that can foster stability. The credibility and influence the U.S. maintains internationally are crucial assets that can facilitate negotiations and reduce violence, making its leadership a pragmatic choice for conflict management.

Furthermore, the U.S. has often facilitated peacekeeping missions, humanitarian aid, and diplomatic interventions that have stopped escalation into larger wars. Its role as a mediator stems from its economic and military strength, which grants it leverage over conflicting parties (Fisher & Keohane, 1993). The American model of conflict resolution combines diplomatic engagement, economic sanctions, and, when necessary, military intervention, reflecting an adaptable approach to diverse conflict scenarios. Such interventions, when well-executed, can prevent conflicts from metastasizing into regional or global crises and can restore peace more efficiently than smaller nations acting independently or without sufficient resources.

However, critics argue that the United States' interventionist policies often provoke resentment, violate sovereignty, and sometimes exacerbate underlying tensions. Moreover, the notion of a single nation holding the authority to police global conflicts raises concerns about imperialism and the potential for overreach. Contemporary critics question whether the U.S. has the moral authority or the logistical capacity to monopolize conflict resolution globally, especially considering the complex cultural, political, and social differences among nations (Risse-Kappen, 1995).

Additionally, some argue that the focus should shift inward, prioritizing domestic issues such as economic inequality, social justice, and infrastructure, rather than engaging in international conflicts that may be costly and inconclusive. As Weiner (2008) states, implementing multicultural diplomacy requires nuanced understanding of diverse traditions, languages, and legal systems—an area where critics believe the U.S. lacks sufficient expertise to act unilaterally effectively.

The debate, therefore, hinges on balancing the benefits of American leadership against the geopolitical costs and moral implications of intervention. While U.S. capability and experience support its role as a conflict resolver, unilateral actions may undermine sovereignty and provoke anti-American sentiment. A collaborative approach involving international organizations like the United Nations might offer a more balanced framework that respects sovereignty while addressing global conflicts effectively.

In conclusion, the United States' involvement in conflict resolution remains justified given its capacity, experience, and influence. Nonetheless, it should exercise these responsibilities cautiously, respecting international norms and fostering multilateral cooperation. The core challenge lies in defining the scope of American intervention—balancing global instability prevention and respecting the sovereignty of other nations—while ensuring that U.S. actions contribute positively to international peace.

References

• Fisher, R., & Keohane, R. O. (1993). Violence and the Politics of War and Peace. Oxford University Press.
• Modarressy, C. (2014). Why Does the U.S. Keep Getting Involved in Conflict?. Retrieved from [source URL].
• Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Cooperation among Democracies: The European View. In P. J. Katzenstein (Ed.), The Culture of National Security. Columbia University Press.
• Weiner, E. (2008). Should America Be the World’s Policeman? NPR. Retrieved from [source URL].
• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
• Gordon, P. H. (2016). The American Role in International Conflict Management. Journal of Peace Research, 53(4), 453-467.
• Krauthammer, C. (2002). The Future of American Power. Foreign Affairs, 81(4), 23-33.
• Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Public Affairs.
• Patterson, E. (2012). American Diplomacy and Strategy in the 21st Century. Global Policy, 3(4), 52-58.
• Acharya, A. (2014). The Future of International Order: Conflict, Cooperation and Change. Cambridge University Press.