When I was younger, one of the utopian dreams was a world government.  As with all utopian dreams, the government would be benevolent and wise, and make good choices and all the world’s citizens would be happy.

Unfortunately, this is not usually the way govenments work. If you look around the world, it is hard to imagine Mr. Putin, Mr. Obama, Mr. Assad, and Mr. Mugabe sitting down and coming to quick consensus on much of anything.

The way we deal with this today is that we have nation states.  The Chinese do what they think they must within their borders.  The Americans do too.  The Russians, the Brazilians, and all the other nations have a defined geography, and they are sovereign within their territory.  Control of those borders keeps conflicts, unrest, even crime confined to the territory within those borders.  The border provides a barrier and a trip wire.  Each nation knows that crossing that border with force is not done lightly. Consequently it is rarely done.  Troubles are not stopped, but they are normally contained.

Enter the War on Terror.

I read recently about a “flurry of drone attacks” in Yemen in response to the rumors of planned embassy attacks.

I recognize that the threat of some of the terrorist scoundrels out there is very real, but as a great nation, we must consider what we do very carefully.

Our policy on drone attacks appears to be a tacit statement that the USA has the right to send out a drone, and kill anyone, at any time, anywhere in the world.  We need not be “at war” with that nation.  We need not give warning to the local government.  We effectively claim jurisdiction over the entire globe.

Not only has our president implicitly declared to the world that the USA has that power and a right to exercise it.  Mr. Obama has made it clear to Congress that he has the authority to launch these attacks at will.  He has power without limit to make war, anywhere in the world, without even the prior notification of Congress.  He has demonstrated his policy with his incursion in Libya. He has made it clear that if he should decide to intervene in Syria, he will not ask for congressional approval.

Is this really what the USA stands for?  Do we really want to set the precedent that a perceived threat is sufficient to justify attacking anyone our intelligence services judge as “hostile”?  Does our President have the power – without any formal congressional approval – to make war?

Some months ago, I wrote a post called “Because We Can: The Arrogance of Power“.  At that time, I was concerned that we would intervene in Syria.  Today, the drumbeat to “do something” in Syria is getting louder.  Democrats and Republicans are both calling for president Obama to “intervene” and “stop the killing”.  There is evidence that chemical weapons have been used, and the Obama administration has some political capital invested in the removal of president Assad, but the FSA (Free Syrian Army) certainly contains islamist elements, and may end up dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quaida.

There are no good choices for the US in Syria.  The only consolation is that it is not our choice to make.

“Because We Can” is not a good reason to claim hegemony.  It is a terrible example.  I would call it wrong.  It is not a precedent we want to live with when an armed drone with a range of 2000 miles is $5000 in any local arms bazzaar.  Technology seems to guarantee that this will come to pass.

We are leaders.  We set the example.  We need borders.  If we want to keep them, we need to respect them.