Aragorn (1st June 2023)
So, having laid out the Wolfowitz Doctrine, I thought it would be interesting to lay out a series of sacred US doctrines. Starting out with the
Monroe Doctrine (1823):
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-d...onroe-doctrineThe Monroe Doctrine was articulated in President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The European powers, according to Monroe, were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States' sphere of interest.
President James Monroe’s 1823 annual message to Congress contained the Monroe Doctrine, which warned European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere.
Understandably, the United States has always taken a particular interest in its closest neighbors – the nations of the Western Hemisphere. Equally understandably, expressions of this concern have not always been favorably regarded by other American nations.
The Monroe Doctrine is the best known U.S. policy toward the Western Hemisphere. Buried in a routine annual message delivered to Congress by President James Monroe in December 1823, the doctrine warns European nations that the United States would not tolerate further colonization or puppet monarchs. The doctrine was conceived to meet major concerns of the moment, but it soon became a watchword of U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere.
No other nation is allowed to enforce such a doctrine.
Manifest Destiny (1845):
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-ma...estiny-1773604Manifest Destiny was a term that came to describe a widespread belief in the middle of the 19th century that the United States had a special mission to expand westward.
The specific phrase was originally used in print by a journalist, John L. O'Sullivan, when writing about the proposed annexation of Texas.
O'Sullivan, writing in the Democratic Review newspaper in July 1845, asserted "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." He was essentially saying the United States possessed a right granted by God to take territory in the West and install its values and system of government.
Truman Doctrine (1947)
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-d...ruman-doctrineOn March 12, 1947, President Harry S. Truman presented this address before a joint session of Congress. His message, known as the Truman Doctrine, asked Congress for $400 million in military and economic assistance for Turkey and Greece.
On Friday, February 21, 1947, the British Embassy informed the U.S. State Department officials that Great Britain could no longer provide financial aid to the governments of Greece and Turkey. American policymakers had been monitoring Greece's crumbling economic and political conditions, especially the rise of the Communist-led insurgency known as the National Liberation Front, or the EAM/ELAS. The United States had also been following events in Turkey, where a weak government faced Soviet pressure to share control of the strategic Dardanelle Straits. When Britain announced that it would withdraw aid to Greece and Turkey, the responsibility was passed on to the United States.
In a meeting between Congressmen and State Department officials, Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson articulated what would later become known as the "domino theory." He stated that more was at stake than Greece and Turkey, for if those two key states should fall, communism would likely spread south to Iran and as far east as India. Acheson concluded that not since the days of Rome and Carthage had such a polarization of power existed. The stunned legislators agreed to endorse the program on the condition that President Truman stress the severity of the crisis in an address to Congress and in a radio broadcast to the American people.
Addressing a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947, President Harry S. Truman asked for $400 million in military and economic assistance for Greece and Turkey and established a policy, aptly characterized as the Truman Doctrine. This doctrine and the related "domino theory" would guide U.S. foreign policy around the world for the next 40 years. President Truman declared, "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." The sanction of aid to Greece and Turkey by a Republican Congress indicated the beginning of a long and enduring bipartisan Cold War foreign policy. Future presidential administrations would use similar reasoning to justify actions in Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam, among others.
The Reagan Doctrine: To Wipe Out Communism
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-reagan...munism-4571021Functionally, the Reagan Doctrine combined the tense brand of Cold War atomic diplomacy as practiced by the United States since the end of World War II, with the addition of overt and covert assistance to anti-communist guerrilla “freedom fighters.” By assisting armed resistance movements in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, Reagan sought to “roll back” the influence of communism on the governments in those regions.
Prominent examples of implementation of the Reagan Doctrine included Nicaragua, where the United States covertly assisted the Contra rebels fighting to oust the Cuban-backed Sandinista government, and Afghanistan, where the U.S. provided material support to the Mujahideen rebels fighting to end the Soviet occupation of their country.
Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992)
· The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower.
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
· Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values.
According to the draft document, the U.S. should aim "to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."
The draft outlines several scenarios in which U.S. interests could be threatened by regional conflict: "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking."
The draft relies on seven scenarios in potential trouble spots to make its argument -- with the primary case studies being Iraq and North Korea.
· If necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action.
There is no mention in the draft document of taking collective action through the United Nations.
The document states that coalitions "hold considerable promise for promoting collective action," but it also states the U.S. "should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies" formed to deal with a particular crisis and which may not outlive the resolution of the crisis.
The document states that what is most important is "the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and that "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in a crisis that calls for quick response.
Bush Doctrine (Make every nation a functioning democracy, and there will be world peace because democracies do not fight each other. This is the rallying cry of the Liberal World Order, today as it was then, "the whole world must strive to be like us. Or else! -where neoconservatism meets neoliberalism)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137499The promotion of democracy is central to the George W. Bush administration's prosecution of both the war on terrorism and its overall grand strategy, in which it is assumed that U.S. political and security interests are advanced by the spread of liberal political institutions and values abroad.
In an approach variously characterized as "democratic realism", "national security liberalism", "democratic globalism", and "messianic universalism", the Bush administration's national security policy has centered on the direct application of U.S. military and political power to promote democracy in strategic areas. In a summer 2004 interview, Bush expressed his "deep desire to spread liberty around the world as a way to help secure (the United States) in the long run".
According to Bush, "As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace". This generic statement of cause and effect is also applied specifically to terrorism: "democracy and reform will make (Middle Eastern states) stronger and more stable, and make the world more secure by undermining terrorism at its source". More broadly, the Bush administration proposes a liberal international order grounded in U.S. military and political power; as its 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) contends, the unparalleled U.S. position of primacy creates a "moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe:... The United States will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world".
This view appears to be contingent on the belief that U.S. power is "the sole pillar upholding a liberal world order that is conducive to the principles the United States believes in.
Good thing these doctrines are firmly upheld, allowing a free hand to patrol the globe in search of aggressive nations...
And sweet holy mother of god, can you imagine how fast a carrier group would set sail to challenge the legitimacy of any other nation seeking such "Manifest Destiny of their own? Katie bar the door there's gonna be trouble!
The unexamined life is not worth living.
Aragorn (2nd June 2023), Catsquotl (2nd June 2023), Diabolical Boids (2nd June 2023), Lord Sidious (2nd June 2023), modwiz (2nd June 2023), Octopus Garden (5th June 2023), Wind (2nd June 2023)
My first and only reading:
Note: The Monroe Doctrine was expressed during President Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823:
...At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .
It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the results have been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.
The late events in Spain and Portugal shew that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and surely none of them more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different.
It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course....
Though not of necessity completely unreasonable given the global situation of the day, this 'Doctrine' was born and expressed from the mind of a Republican. [Me]
“I am a social justice...advocate and I say, "Stop the Hate!"