In 1823, President James Monroe gave a speech about when he thought the United States should get involved in events happening outside of our country. His comments became the basis for the Monroe Doctrine which stated that the United States would regard any interference in Western hemispheric affairs as a threat to its security.
In later years, that doctrine and America’s belief in its manifest destiny was used by subsequent Presidents to counter Spanish, French, and British involvement in Mexico, the Caribbean islands, and even in parts of the undeveloped western lands of North America.
In 1905, President Teddy Roosevelt expanded the use of Monroe Doctrine with his “talk softly and carry a big stick” philosophy in which he threatened other powers with military action if they did not listen to his foreign policy wishes. He used that philosophy in dealing with issues affecting Venezuela, Panama, and Cuba.
And then came Word Wars I and II in which the United States joined other nations in a defensive manner to battle Germany and Japan’s efforts to expand across Europe and the Far East. As a result of those wars, our foreign policy efforts expanded greatly beyond protecting our nearby interests to offensively fighting on behalf of democracy throughout the world.
This new philosophy resulted in our involvement in Korea in the 1950’s; Vietnam in the 1960’s; Lebanon in the 1980’s; the first Gulf War, Somalia, and Yugoslavia in the 1990’s; the ongoing War on Terrorism since 2001 in Iraq and Afghanistan; and most recently into Libya.
With all of these military conflicts costing American lives and costing our taxpayers trillions of dollars, the question must be raised whether such efforts are worth it. And are we really battling for the spread of democracy or are we simply doing so to protect the free world’s access to needed minerals and food stuffs?
To me, such a discussion is a moral one because I believe that no man or woman should live in a place that does not have basic human freedoms to speak their mind, to choose whatever path in life they desire, and to worship their choice of religion. Our country has benefitted greatly by such beliefs and I believe it is our obligation to ensure such for others wherever they live in this world.
But I also believe that such efforts should be repaid to some degree from the fruits of freedom and democracy established or protected in such lands. Certainly our efforts during World Wars I and II ensured that commerce would continue with a free West Germany and France. And our country initially benefitted greatly from the reconstruction of Japan. The ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union from our cold war efforts also opened up new bilateral trade channels which have enriched America.
Please do not think I believe the United States should be an economic mercenary always looking for a return on its military investment because the loss of one soldier is greater than any economic gain. But I do not believe that other world powers or private corporations should benefit more than Uncle Sam from whatever economic gains do come from a victorious effort in spreading democracy and freedom to a needed part of the world until our military expenditures are repaid.
Our efforts in toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq have not been repaid to our taxpayers with proceeds from those country’s main sources of income. And the recent conflict in Libya regarding the stability of Gaddafi is most likely to only benefit France which counts on Libyan oil for fueling its economy yet we are the ones spending billions on military efforts.
But why have we not gone after other despots throughout the world? Certainly freedom should be just as important to our fellow mankind in Sudan, Mynamar, Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and several former Soviet states.
The bottom line, unfortunately, is the bottom line. We cannot afford to be the police for the entire world unless our economic interests or national defense are at stake. And sometimes even when national interests are at stake such as Iran or North Korea, we have to avoid possible bigger conflicts with the likes of China and Russia.
And therein lies the importance of electing a President who has the gumption and persuasiveness to rally the world to support our efforts. Unfortunately, I do not believe President Obama is the right man for that job. Let’s hope the American people choose wiser in 2012.
