Inherent in the concept of "world policing" is that it is not "restricted to protecting the life, liberty, and property of Americans". Humanitarian missions are an entirely separate topic.
----------------------------- It is not my intent to advocate world policing. If I inferred arbitrary world policing by the US military, then that was unintentional. The US military's policing should be restricted to protecting the life, liberty, and property of Americans. In a related matter, is it OK to use the military for certain humanitarian missions? The current situation in Burma makes me think of the really great work the US military did in the Asian tsunami a couple of years ago. The US military has a rather unique capability for such things, and it's nice to see all that weaponry and other equipment we've already purchased used for saving lives rather than destroying them. Private sector groups can raise funds and provide resources, but they don't have the logistical and other resources the military has. However, I'm having difficulty reconciling the military's post-tsunami humanitarian mission with libertarian principles. Just wondering if anyone else has been thinking about that and has any ideas how to leverage a government capability without coercion.
