David Brooks, "The Good Order": Why the United States Must Be the World's Policeman

In his latest, and perhaps worst ever, New York Times op-ed entitled "The Good Order," subtitled "Routine, Creativity and President Obama’s U.N. Speech," David Brooks describes the need for "order." Who requires order, according to Brooks? Simple:

• "[C]reative people organize their lives according to repetitive, disciplined routines."
• "Children need emotional and physical order."
• "Communities need order."
• "The world needs order."

This being the case according to Brooks, "The United States is obligated to organize coalitions to impose rule of law — to beat back the wolves and maintain that order."

Telling us that Obama gave one of "the finest speeches of his presidency" at the United Nations last week, Brooks concludes:

"[T]he larger point is that the order of global civilization, like the order in a poet’s mind, is something that has to be fought and imposed every day. The best life is a series of daring excursions from a secure and orderly base."

Or in other words, the United States needs to be the world's policeman for the sake of "global civilization." Sorry, but I'm not in the market for horse manure.

Although observing the need to defend "the world order against enemies like ISIS and Putin," Brooks doesn't bother to consider how war waged only against ISIS also benefits Syria's monstrous president, Bashar al-Assad. Wasn't Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians also an affront against world order?

Mind you, I don't oppose the use of force against ISIS, but as far as I'm concerned, the use of force has absolutely nothing to do with "the order in a poet's mind" or children's need for "emotional and physical order." My world view is simpler: Any organization that ruthlessly murders American citizens, threatens terror attacks against American cities, and perpetrates genocidal acts against innocent civilians is going to feel the wrath and power of the world's only superpower.

And as long as we're on the topic of Obama's "finest speech," Brooks fails to mention how the president declared that "the violence engulfing the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard work of peace." On the other hand, there was no call from Obama for the Palestinians to forgo terrorism, i.e., to stop firing thousands of rockets into Israel and murdering teenagers.

Brooks writes, "We'll see what action comes behind the words." Indeed, let's see if Obama's poll-driven resolve to confront ISIS extends beyond America's midterm elections.

Why do I have my doubts?