For the past 40 years, American politicians have argued how wars in far-flung third-world countries are in the United States’ vital strategic interests. From Iraq to Kosovo, American leaders of both parties squandered trillions of dollars and thousands of lives chasing phantom threats around the world.
The rationale behind these interventions has often been based on outright fabrications cloaked by high-falutin’ language to the American public. Take President Bill Clinton’s 78-day bombing of a European capital — the first since World War II. Clinton sold the intervention as a way to prevent World War III: “We act to prevent a wider war, to defuse a powder keg at the heart of Europe, that has exploded twice before in this century with catastrophic results.”
Or a few years later, President George W. Bush’s claim that “Iraq’s combination of weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorist groups and ballistic missiles would threaten the peace of many nations.” The American military scoured Iraq for weapons that never materialized — a pointless snipe hunt that likely compromised the simultaneous U.S. mission to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.
More recently, President Joe Biden’s proclamation that Russian leader Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power” sounded downright delusional. Was the United States advocating regime change in the country with more nuclear weapons than any other nation on earth?
More cautious voices urging American restraint are often called “isolationist,” which only in a place like Washington, D.C., could be a four-letter word.
Predictably, President-elect Donald Trump’s November victory kicked off a new campaign by D.C.’s interventionists to keep America “engaged” around the world. Breathlessly they have speculated that Trump might yank the United States out of the United Nations, cede Ukraine to Russia or let China take Taiwan.
Even Trump’s fellow Republicans criticized the potential perils and costs of America’s retreat from the world stage.
But while neocons and globalists were still trying to figure out the meaning of “America first,” Trump began to eye Canada as the 51st state and poked fun at “Governor” Trudeau. Greenland also found its way into Trump’s Amazon Prime cart, prompting Denmark to announce it was increasing defense spending (although Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen called the announcement’s timing an “irony of fate.” Ja, ja, sure.) Then there’s the Panama Canal, which the president-elect has vowed to take back unless Panama secures it from Chinese influence.
Suddenly “America first” doesn’t seem so isolationist to the Foggy Bottom blob. Even the densest diplomat should have a clearer picture of Trump’s foreign policy. The 45th and 47th president demands that clear American interests be at stake in any military intervention.
Trump’s worldview is in many ways a revival of former President James Monroe’s 1823 warning to other foreign powers not to meddle in America’s hemisphere — what became known as the Monroe Doctrine: “we should consider any attempt [by European powers] to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.”
It is adherence to the Monroe Doctrine that built the United States into the world’s greatest power — a regional hegemon. From Germany’s threat to ally with Mexico in World War I to the Soviet Union’s meddling in Cuba, the United States has often used the principles outlined by its fifth president to ward off potential threats.
There’s a rarely-discussed flip side of the Monroe Doctrine — not meddling in unnecessary foreign wars: “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.”
Wise words. When it comes to foreign interventions, Trump’s embrace of the Monroe Doctrine is a restoration of an America-first approach that dates back to our country’s very founding. It can’t get here soon enough.
Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
