Manifestly Monroe

James Monroe served as the fifth president of the United States from 1817 to 1825.  

As a student at William and Mary he left school to enlist with the 3rd Virginia Regiment in 1775 joining thousands of colonists on our road to independence from British tyranny.  He participated in the New York and New Jersey campaigns and crossed the Delaware with Washington.  He was critically wounded at the Battle of Trenton nearly costing him his life.  He eventually rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel before studying law and beginning his lengthy political career.  This patriot was the last Founding Father to serve as president.

American Battlefield Trust

He is also remembered for the Monroe Doctrine - a foreign policy recently resurrected as one of several justifications for regime change in Venezuela.  I would like to take a few moments to walk down U.S. History's Memory Lane to refresh my reader's memories of the origins and particulars of Monroe's preeminent foreign policy.

It was 1821 when Secretary of State John Quincy Adams first expressed the notion that the American continent should be closed to colonization by other countries.  Adams felt strongly that any further colonization in America - excepting for Canada - should be left exclusively in the hands of the Americans.  As the principal architect and author it was his ideas that were subsequently adopted by President Monroe as the Monroe Doctrine.  Formalized in1823 this policy declared American dominance in the region and closed the Western Hemisphere to future European colonization and intervention. 

In simple terms the Monroe Doctrine put the European powers on notice to not colonize or interfere in the Americas anymore; in return, the United States would keep its nose out of European politics and conflicts.  President Monroe's intent was to affirm the influence of the United States in protecting newly independent countries in our hemisphere.  

Does the Monroe Doctrine allow or uphold regime change in the Western Hemisphere?  

It does not.

What it stipulates is threefold. That European powers shall not colonize or interfere in the Americas.  That the United States is opposed to external influence over newly independent nations in our hemisphere.  And it specifically does not authorize the United States to overthrow governments.  This critical distinction is that the doctrine was about keeping Europe out and not about the United States choosing governments in our hemisphere.

It was US foreign policies and actions in the late 19th and 20th centuries that went beyond the Monroe Doctrine that has contributed to misinterpretations and revisionist mashups both then and persisting to present time.  Specifically, interventions as a consequence of the Roosevelt Corollary.  Multiple subsequent Cold War interventions bastardized and reinterpreted the Doctrine to justify meddling in foreign governments including regime change.  

If you know your history you would know that the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was a foreign policy warning to Europe; it says nothing about US expansion or territorial control.  Armed with this knowledge you would also know from our history that in the 1840s there evolved an expansionist dogma (not specific foreign policy) that the U.S. had a divine right to spread its power, way of life and expand its domain.  As a pervasive cultural attitude it justified imperial ambitions that led to the annexation of Texas, the Mexican-American War, and acquisition of the territories of Hawaii and the Philippines. 

This expansionist ideology was characterized as Manifest Destiny. 

I was wondering aloud the other day to an acquaintance who is a history nerd if there was some possibility that President Trump or Steven Miller somehow mangled their knowledge of U.S. history and got cattywampus with legitimate foreign policy and divinely-inspired expansionism.   

His short answer was yes; but it would be more accurate to say that the President has conflated the ideas in a rhetorical jumble, but not formally redefined them.

Trump's sonorous flourishes have drawn on themes about US dominance in the Western Hemisphere calling for the exclusion of Russian, Chinese and Iranian influences.  From time-to-time he has invoked the Monroe Doctrine as justification for strong action in Latin America.  Historians suggest that this framing treats our Western Hemisphere as a sphere of US influence and control more often aligned with the tenets of Manifest Destiny and to a lesser extent the policy of the Monroe Doctrine.

To be clear, the Monroe Doctrine is about excluding foreign empires; Manifest Destiny is about asserting U.S. power and expansion.  When the Monroe Doctrine is used to justify coercion, intervention, dominance, territorial expansion or regime change these motivations are more accurately a pretense for invoking Manifest Destiny. 

The President has implied a re-imagined Monroe Doctrine as a modern day equivalent he coined the 'Donroe Doctrine'.  Foreign policy and US history scholars suggest that renaming the Gulf Of Mexico and promising to seize the Panama Canal and Greenland echo Manifest Destiny in actual practice.

You're probably thinking:  Geeze Tom lighten-up on the semantics. You're being way too picky; cut the Prez some slack.  

To which my response would be:  Don't be a slacker.  And don't take my word for it.  Read your history.

Picking Winners and Losers - Part 2

Who’s winning?

Domestic US automobile manufacturers are subject to a 50% tariff on steel - resulting in the highest steel prices on the planet, a 25% tariff on parts imported from Mexico and Canada along with a 65%+ tariff on Chinese LCDs and electronics. 

The European Union can manufacture cars with zero steel tariffs, 4% Chinese tariffs, and zero tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada. 

EU auto exports to the US are subject to a 15% tariff.

The Art of the Deal.......

European Militaries Lag

From time to time I talk about military world events here.  That's what armchair generals do.  Besides, anyone with half a brain is entitled to an opinion about world events. This news interests me a great deal considering the world is a dangerous place.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that some of Europe's best known armed forces are paper tigers.  

The United Kingdom is home to only about 150 deployable tanks along with maybe as many as a dozen long-range artillery pieces.  If you can believe it, the Brits considered sourcing multiple rocket launchers from museums to upgrade and donate to Ukraine; an idea that was promptly abandoned.

France, a bigger spender, had less than 90 heavy artillery pieces; the equivalent to what Russia loses each and every month on the Ukraine battlefield.  

Denmark has no heavy artillery, submarines or air-defense systems.

Germany's army has an inventory of ammunition sufficient for two days of battle. 

All of this is evidence of the deplorable readiness of Europe's armies and dependence on the US for home defense.

To be clear, this is only one publication's summation and not all NATO members are created equal.  In aggregate, NATO forces are considered technologically superior to Russia. although NATO's ability to engage successfully in joint operations is untested.  The Ukraine conflict is evidence that a smaller, better managed force can give the Russians fits.

If Western European nations aren't willing to spend sufficiently to defend themselves, why should we?  Looks like Donald Trump was on to something when he leaned on NATO members who were not living up to their minimum 2% of GDP defense authorization commitment.

Anyway, read the entire article, linked above, for full context.  This is likely ground-shaking enough that you can find a public link to the story that gets you past the paywall.