The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny: Valid or Moot?

I think America should butt out of other countries internal affairs completely...unless a medium/major genocide is occurring (like in Rwanda in '94); then, America should try and stop it (hopefully along with the U.N.).

No more foreign military bases, drone strikes or military aid.

AlbqOwl said:

Who should pick and choose which 'instabilities' are in our national interest and/or should be our business?
What criteria should they use?

Click to expand...

Hello Albuquerque.
This is an interesting thread and I'd like to wade in further when I have more time.

As my Air Force Dad would say to me growing up in the 50's and 60's, if not us (USA), who?
The World owes the USA a great debt when it comes to lives and treasure.

The negative are the excesses of our Foreign Policy in meddling in other Countries internal affairs, no matter the POTUS.
Always with an eye to our economic and strategic interests I'm sure.

I'm still gonna get an audience for my water pipeline before I leave this Earth .

DA60 said:

I think America should butt out of other countries internal affairs completely...unless a medium/major genocide is occurring (like in Rwanda in '94); then, America should try and stop it (hopefully along with the U.N.).

No more foreign military bases, drone strikes or military aid.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is very realistic. Without having at least some bases around the world, it makes it very difficult for us to intervene in the case of genocide if necessary.

SouthernDemocrat said:

It is not a question of will to win, its ability. We can easily defeat any non-nuclear nation on earth. The problem is that you cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun. Ultimately our experience in Afghanistan is no different than the former Soviet Unions. There are those that argue we should take the gloves off, well, I can assure you that the Soviet Union did and were extremely brutal in repressing extremists in Afghanistan yet in the end it got them nothing to show for it.

Click to expand...

Re bolded sentence (that I bolded), sure you can. We did exactly that in Germany, Italy, and Japan. We bludgeoned all three countries into total submission and unconditional surrender, and then spent the next five years seeing to it that they installed governments that would be allies, not adversaries, and would have governments that we could work with. As a result all three are our friends, powerful trading partners, and allies.

But those countries where we didn't impose overwhelming force but rather pulled our punches out of politically correct expediency and all that, and eventually just stopped fighting--precious few of those are our friends or hold us in high esteem. And we left some bitter enemies behind here and there too.

War is horrendous and should always be the absolute last resort to settle differences. But maybe the new doctrine should be that if we are going to fight it, the other country WILL submit to our will. Or else we won't expend our blood and treasure to fight it at all.

Playing world policeman for fun, profit and political gain is getting old. Defense of the US surely does not require this level of military spending. We we seem to have invented a new "war machine" called Homeland Security and now use our military to play world policeman. If we seriously think that we can "control" 12 million illegal aliens (already here) with an ICE force of 5K field agents, and secure our massive borders with 20K border patrol agents, then I guess we can downsize our "defense" forces considerably.

Van Basten said:

Manifest Destiny is over with, that was for another time. Same with the Monroe Doctrine, I'd say.

Both have served their purposes.

Click to expand...

Monroe Doctrine maybe apply a bit to the illegal alien issue we have now. Some consider it a movement to retake land.

American said:

Monroe Doctrine maybe apply a bit to the illegal alien issue we have now. Some consider it a movement to retake land.

Click to expand...

The principle would be much the same but the Monroe Doctrine was intended to warn folks who would meddle with any nations within the North and South American continents. And since Mexico is part of North America, the Monroe Doctrine wouldn't technically apply. I suppose Manifest Destiny could apply though if we ever decided to invade Mexico and force it to install a government that would effectively deal with the drug cartels and illegal emigration.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I don't think that is very realistic. Without having at least some bases around the world, it makes it very difficult for us to intervene in the case of genocide if necessary.

Click to expand...

The 82'nd Airborne can parachute in to almost anywhere and secure just about any airfield - especially in a country like Rwanda. Besides, Marine MEU's only comprise a few thousand troops.
Either way, you are going to have to fly in Army units to really put serious boots on the ground fast. They can fly in from almost anywhere (with re-fuelling)...Germany OR America.
No need to forward base them.

AlbqOwl said:

But then why is it so inconsistent? Does it make sense to bomb Lybia, effectively achieve regime change, send in our own advisors, and protect a very shaky government with our own military, while not intervening with anything more than empty rhetoric when the same unheavals are going on in Syria, Egypt, Ukraine etc.?

We didn't win the ideological war in Iraq and we expended all that horrendous blood and treasure there and have absolutely nothing to show for it. It appears we will soon be leaving Afghanistan which the Taliban will almost certainly reclaim just as soon as we vacate the premises, and we'll have nothing at all to show for the twelve years of expending precious blood and treasure.

The USA has not had the will to win a war since 1945. We still fight them, but never to win anymore. At some point we become war weary and just stop fighting them. In some cases we acquire a tentative friend in the process such as South Korea or Kosovo, etc. But is it worth it?

Who should pick and choose which 'instabilities' are in our national interest and/or should be our business? What criteria should they use?

Click to expand...

Of course the actions of societies are or will appear inconsistent, which is not to say that it consistency would not seem preferable. But no two situations are the same and even the amount of available treasure can make policy restrictions seem inconsistent to the viewer.

This is especially true now in a period in which the US seems to have decided to force it allies to shoulder more weight in international security. This goes back to the Bush I administration, when the analysis began to point out the necessity. We are talking of a huge change in the international architecture here and must keep in mind that it is very difficult to keep a country as large as that of the US on track over multiple administrations of changing political parties.

joG said:

Of course the actions of societies are or will appear inconsistent, which is not to say that it consistency would not seem preferable. But no two situations are the same and even the amount of available treasure can make policy restrictions seem inconsistent to the viewer.

This is especially true now in a period in which the US seems to have decided to force it allies to shoulder more weight in international security. This goes back to the Bush I administration, when the analysis began to point out the necessity. We are talking of a huge change in the international architecture here and must keep in mind that it is very difficult to keep a country as large as that of the US on track over multiple administrations of changing political parties.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But many other nations don't spend a whopping big amount on their military because they don't have to. They know if they get in trouble, they can count on our military to come to the rescue. And somehow that just doesn't seem the way things should be.

American said:

Monroe Doctrine maybe apply a bit to the illegal alien issue we have now. Some consider it a movement to retake land.

Click to expand...

How though?

Those people want to move here and become one of us. I don't support illegal immigrants' actions, but they are hardly trying to retake land. That's a strange lens to see it through.

Van Basten said:

How though?

Those people want to move here and become one of us. I don't support illegal immigrants' actions, but they are hardly trying to retake land. That's a strange lens to see it through.

Click to expand...

It's not a strange lens if you understand the attitude of some, and they are also not immigrants by definition.

Van Basten said:

How though?

Those people want to move here and become one of us. I don't support illegal immigrants' actions, but they are hardly trying to retake land. That's a strange lens to see it through.

Click to expand...

As with all immigrants from everywhere, those who wish to move here and assimilate into the American culture and be Americans are welcome. They will of course blend in their own unique flavor with the whole and that enriches us all.

Those who want to move here and change our culture into what they left in their old countries, who want us to accommodate their old culture, their language, their religion, their laws or whatever, not so much. There are elements of the more militant La Raza, for instance, that would like for Mexico to regain U.S. territory and land it lost or gave up long ago.

I'm sure in former times, before we became so fricking politically correct, some actions by illegal immigrants, Mexican and others, coming across our southern borders and most especially by the Mexican drug cartels, could be sufficient reason for military retaliation. And if we use a blended interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny, it could be seen as justification for forcibly annexing Mexico. That, I believe, would be the best possible thing that could happen to Mexico as it is now, but of course it isn't going to happen. And I doubt many, if any, of us would approve of such an action.

AlbqOwl said:

As with all immigrants from everywhere, those who wish to move here and assimilate into the American culture and be Americans are welcome. They will of course blend in their own unique flavor with the whole and that enriches us all.

Those who want to move here and change our culture into what they left in their old countries, who want us to accommodate their old culture, their language, their religion, their laws or whatever, not so much. There are elements of the more militant La Raza, for instance, that would like for Mexico to regain U.S. territory and land it lost or gave up long ago.

Click to expand...

Those types are definitely the problematic kind, but they are hardly common.

@bolded: Surprised there's anyone like that. That's a special kind of nonsense.

And I doubt many, if any, of us would approve of such an action.

Click to expand...

I definitely wouldn't. That's taking it too far by a long shot.


And the thing with the cartels is that Americans are their main customer. Our drug users drive their profits and activities without having to deal with the cartel violence that plagues the lives of Mexicans in certain regions of their nation. Makes for an interesting situation. At least El Chapo got caught -- though the very same spell a lot of trouble for what will happen with his would be successors in Mexico.

SouthernDemocrat said:

It is not a question of will to win, its ability. We can easily defeat any non-nuclear nation on earth. The problem is that you cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun. Ultimately our experience in Afghanistan is no different than the former Soviet Unions. There are those that argue we should take the gloves off, well, I can assure you that the Soviet Union did and were extremely brutal in repressing extremists in Afghanistan yet in the end it got them nothing to show for it.

Click to expand...

Our failures in Afghanistan are from an unwillingness to understand how their society works at a grassroots level. It's a gangster culture where the idea of turning against your tribe on behalf of abstract ideas like justice or nationhood is like asking career criminals to turn on their colleagues because its the right thing to do. They watch and evaluate America's actions, and most of what they see confirms that we are just like them, and therefore can't be trusted more so than any other rival tribe. They bring us into their confederate politics, where they use us where it is convenient and betray us where it is expedient.

In the same way gangsters watch cops and decide cops are just like them. The perception is not perfectly accurate, but there's enough there to leave room for doubt. That doubt undermines any attempt at cultural outreach.

Morality Games said:

Our failures in Afghanistan are from an unwillingness to understand how their society works at a grassroots level. It's a gangster culture where the idea of turning against your tribe on behalf of abstract ideas like justice or nationhood is like asking career criminals to turn on their colleagues because its the right thing to do. They watch and evaluate America's actions, and most of what they see confirms that we are just like them, and therefore can't be trusted more so than any other rival tribe. They bring us into their confederate politics, where they use us where it is convenient and betray us where it is expedient.

In the same way gangsters watch cops and decide cops are just like them. The perception is not perfectly accurate, but there's enough there to leave room for doubt. That doubt undermines any attempt at cultural outreach.

Click to expand...

Of course the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny are both concepts in which we would expect to control or reform another country. I don't know whether that extends into expecting them to become like us, though of course there would be some influence there. The Philippines, for instance, became very Americanized during the time they were an American colony while retaining much of their former culture. Here in the southwest, we folks who once were part of Mexico and Spain still enjoy exhibiting that part of the culture as our own in our food, architecture, amenities, and to some extent dress, but yet we are unmistakably Americans first.

Let's look at an example of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny that is still in effect:

Cuba.

Does anybody remember WHY we have a trade embargo with Cuba and disallow any imports from there and allow only humanitarian exports (food and medicine) from here to there? It is purely because Cuba is a communist country with serious human rights issues and it refuses to democratize.

The Cuban embargo is enforced mainly with six statutes: the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Cuba Assets Control Regulations of 1963, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the Helms–Burton Act of 1996, and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. And there doesn't seem to be any serious efforts from anybody in the current Congress or Administration to relax the embargo and Americans of Cuban origins don't want to relax them.

How does something like that play into our views of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny?

AlbqOwl said:

I for one am tired of being the world's policeman. But I'm always torn. Do we just sit back, close our eyes, and pretend a genocide isn't happening when we have the military might to stop it? Isn't it in our national interest to not allow a brutal and self-serving tyrant to tie up a large majority of the world's petroleum supplies? And what good are treaties if they are not honored when our allies get into trouble?

So I checked the option that we need a new doctrine to clear up the conflicting issues. But I honestly don't know yet how to write one. I am hoping this discussion will help sort out my own personal conflicts so I will know better what to support.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that the USA should have the role as the world's police, even in our hemisphere. We (and every other nation) should only be defending ourselves and intervening in other conflicts when it is likely to prevent or stop a genocidal situation. No nation has a right to take military or other violent or illegal action for the purpose of acquiring resources. No nation has a complete monopoly on any resource for which there is no alternative AFAIK.

The extent to which we should defend our allies is the trickiest question. We have had a special obligation to protect Germany and Japan because we disarmed them at the end of WWII. I think the time is here to trust them with their own military again since they have been well behaved since WWII. Supporting allies in conflicts should only be done in genocidal situations and possibly also when there is a clearly illegal occupation or massive attack. Whether to support an ally in the event of attack or occupation should be very carefully considered and only done with the approval of congress. If it was up to me, going to war would require a two thirds vote.

Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism were never legitimate concepts and definitely should not be used to excuse any action in the future.

Hard Truth said:

I don't believe that the USA should have the role as the world's police, even in our hemisphere. We (and every other nation) should only be defending ourselves and intervening in other conflicts when it is likely to prevent or stop a genocidal situation. No nation has a right to take military or other violent or illegal action for the purpose of acquiring resources. No nation has a complete monopoly on any resource for which there is no alternative AFAIK.

The extent to which we should defend our allies is the trickiest question. We have had a special obligation to protect Germany and Japan because we disarmed them at the end of WWII. I think the time is here to trust them with their own military again since they have been well behaved since WWII. Supporting allies in conflicts should only be done in genocidal situations and possibly also when there is a clearly illegal occupation or massive attack. Whether to support an ally in the event of attack or occupation should be very carefully considered and only done with the approval of congress. If it was up to me, going to war would require a two thirds vote.

Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism were never legitimate concepts and definitely should not be used to excuse any action in the future.

Click to expand...

Good post. So what should we do re Cuba?

AlbqOwl said:

Good post. So what should we do re Cuba?

Click to expand...

Negotiate an end to the embargo in exchange for some human rights improvements. Engage and influence usually works better than isolate, vilify and/or ignore.

AlbqOwl said:

Let's look at an example of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny that is still in effect:

Cuba.

Does anybody remember WHY we have a trade embargo with Cuba and disallow any imports from there and allow only humanitarian exports (food and medicine) from here to there? It is purely because Cuba is a communist country with serious human rights issues and it refuses to democratize.

The Cuban embargo is enforced mainly with six statutes: the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Cuba Assets Control Regulations of 1963, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the Helms–Burton Act of 1996, and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. And there doesn't seem to be any serious efforts from anybody in the current Congress or Administration to relax the embargo and Americans of Cuban origins don't want to relax them.

How does something like that play into our views of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny?

Click to expand...

I cannot understand why after all these years, it doesn't help the USA or Cuba as they are natural trading partners ( by geography)

Americans of Cuban origins don't want to relax them

Click to expand...

true, the "old guard" who fled from Castro are about the only ones still hanging on to the notion

Hard Truth said:

Negotiate an end to the embargo in exchange for some human rights improvements. Engage and influence usually works better than isolate, vilify and/or ignore.

Click to expand...

Do you think that hasn't been tried in the more than 50 years the embargo has been in place?

The world needs a new one. No more a lot of bases around the world with a lot of soldiers. There will always be a need for the role of peace keeper and police man but not for just the US. There has to be a better and cheaper way to achieve the same. There will have to be strategic bases in the world from which the US and it's allies can operate if needed. There is no need for large tank armies. There are no large tank enemies to conquer anymore IMHO.

The US has the hardware for the large part, the cruise missiles, drones, attack helicopters, submarines, aircraft carriers as well as great specialized troops. The allies of the US have to provide patriot missile protection if needed, F16 planes, smaller frigates for smaller protection details (like the anti-pirate mission). On top of that they have to provide fast response units to aid/fight alongside the US in hot spots around the world. Quick and fast intervention and then pulling out to hand over to a local UN mission (like in Africa). The allies of the US have to work with the US to make their armed forces as complementary as possible to the US effort.

And even more important, the allies have to be able to handle certain missions themselves, without US aid. So the big countries like the UK and France will have to have their own stockpile of hardware like submarines, aircraft carriers, drones and cruise missiles so that they can do missions without costing the US a lot of money/effort. Other allies will have to buy the plane power the new fast response nato will need. Countries like Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and others will have to make sure the non-US response contingent will have enough fighter planes, bomber planes and attack helicopters to be effective. Other countries like Sweden, Norway, Turkey, Austria, etc. will have to make sure they have enough light and heavy tanks that can be shipped to a war zone if needed. But as it is a quick response army these tanks will not be needed often because cruise missiles, fighter planes, drones and attack helicopters can do that almost as effective as tanks can.

There will need to be a lot more cooperation and than the US and other countries can save money and still be effective around the world if needed. The US will still have the national reserve which can receive excess US military material like tanks for regular training missions so that they will be prepared if there will ever be the need for a big armed invasion somewhere in the world. But with the advancing hardware the US and other armies are buying I doubt this will be necessary.

AlbqOwl said:

Do you think that hasn't been tried in the more than 50 years the embargo has been in place?

Click to expand...

The Cuban refugees, who are a significant voting block in Florida, have strongly opposed reconciliation with Cuba. Apparently they are powerful enough that all attempts to warm up relations with Cuba have failed. I'm guessing they want to get their property back from Cuba, which I doubt will ever happen. It may take that generation of refugees dying off for any significant progress to be made.

Peter King said:

The world needs a new one. No more a lot of bases around the world with a lot of soldiers. There will always be a need for the role of peace keeper and police man but not for just the US. .....

Click to expand...

It seems that the fear of Russia, China or someone else taking over the police role is one of the motivations for the USA to staying in that role.