The British magazine The Economist is an authoritative voice of mainstream establishment opinion. In general takes the positions that in America have historically been most closely associated with moderate Republicans. Thus, it differs sharply with the ideology that governs the current Republican Party, which has moved considerably to the right. But in one crucial area, The Economist’s editorialists and the Republican leaders framing their campaign for the midterm elections have come to an unfortunate agreement: America has both the ability and the obligation to maintain order in the world, and to the extent that bad people are succeeding in using military force for bad purposes, it is in substantial part President Obama’s fault for not stopping them.

The Republicans are explicit about that, with John McCain and others complaining about lack of American military intervention in virtually every trouble spot that has plagued the Middle East in the past few years. The Economist is less shrill, but equally insistent that it is America’s responsibility to stop bad things from happening, not just in that part of the world but elsewhere, and that Obama has been deficient in leading America to play this role.

I was first struck by The Economist’s position on this in a “leader” (its term for what we call “editorial”) in the Sept. 27 edition. “America,” it said, “seems swamped by the forces of disorder, either unable or unwilling to steady a world that is spinning out of control.”

A week later, the subhead of an article made the point even more explicit: “Barack Obama has dangerously reduced the military help America owes Afghanistan.”

I read the latter article carefully, and nowhere found any justification for the argument that America “owes” Afghanistan tens of billions more in military presences and economic change. This would mean an indefinite continued presence of an American military force in Afghanistan. Specifically, The Economist supports “an enduring force of about 15,000 … (to) provide military assistance, and particularly the airpower Afghan soldiers have become used to when fighting alongside their NATO partners.”

Neither is there any argument as to why it is America’s responsibility “to steady a world that is spinning out of control.”

It should be clear that The Economist is among those that believe this is largely an American obligation. It acknowledges in other articles that we get very little help from our allies, and while it regrets that, it insists we shoulder the burden by ourselves.

This has grave policy implications: namely that America should send ground troops into Iraq at least, and by the logic of this argument into Syria as well; and that we should have a permanent military presence in Afghanistan.

The first thing that should be noted is that those who make this argument are among those who are critical of America’s budget deficit. Neither the Republicans nor The Economist has been supportive of the level of tax increase that would be necessary to pay for these extraordinarily expensive military adventures.

But there is an even deeper flaw. They both greatly exaggerate the extent to which American military intervention can bring about the fundamental changes in the facts on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere. The sad fact is that the people we would like to see in control in Iraq, within the Syrian opposition and even in Afghanistan may be incapable of defeating their own internal enemies, and this is not because their enemies outgun them.

The Economist “leader” that I quoted laments the fact that the Afghan troops must have American airpower in their fight against the Taliban. That would be a forceful argument if the Taliban had airpower. In fact, none of those whose military successes are troubling has any airpower whatsoever.

I deeply regret it when the anti-extremist forces are unable to sustain themselves. And I do support the use of airpower where that is useful in deterring the slaughter of innocent people. But the notion that it is somehow America’s responsibility – and more importantly our capability – to turn the tide of battle in those places, short of a massive American military intervention, is simply wrong.

I am particularly puzzled by the notion that what is needed is for us to “train” these people whom we wish to see succeed. Who is training the Taliban or the Islamic State? The answer is that neither of these forces is getting “trained” by either the America military or any comparable force. The reason that they are doing so well has nothing to do with airpower or superior equipment or better training. It is, tragically, that the intangible forces that are so important in determining the outcome of this sort of military campaigning work against our side.

The critical question arises: Should America send in a large ground force to win the battle that a more moderate force may be unable to win on its own. The Economist and the Republican right divide on this particular question, not on whether America should have a significant role, but on the rationale. To The Economist, we “owe” Afghanistan this commitment. We also in its worldview have the obligation because of our economic and military power to police the world virtually singlehandedly.

Understanding that this rationale would not sell well with the American people, the Republicans instead have claimed that we face a severe national security threat.

At its most ludicrous extreme, this consists of claiming that the Islamic State is sending people across the Mexican-American border, an assertion for which there is no evidence.

Others argue equally incorrectly that America’s national security is threatened by the Taliban and the Islamic State. In both cases, we are dealing with terrible people, with no regard for human life. But in neither case are they a threat to America’s security.

The Islamic State is bent on establishing its rule in that region. There are a number of forces ready to repel it – Iran, forces within Iraq, the government of Syria, and at some point Turkey, although that government’s behavior so far has been contemptible.

It is reasonable for America to provide airpower and financial aid. But the notion that our national security is threatened by the success of bad people in governing those territories is incorrect, which is fortunate, since our experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan makes it clear that short of a continued occupation by a massive military presence, our capacity to keep the people we prefer in power does not exist.

I’ve noted before that one of the criticisms made by conservatives 30 years ago was that liberals always “blamed American first.” Today, it is the right that does that. In 1947 when we were the only democratic nation that survived World War II with any economic and military capacity, it made sense for us to police the world. It no longer does.

Barney Frank is a retired congressman and the author of landmark legislation. He divides his time between Maine and Massachusetts.

Twitter: BarneyFrank

– Special to the Telegram