Future service academy graduates/going into war

The problem with that theory is that the "other side of the world" of the world is plane ticket away. The Monroe Doctrine works much better in an era where non-state and hybrid threats can't reach out and touch you in a time span ranging from milliseconds to hours.

You missed the "Modified" part of my leaning... Can't be totally isolationist. I have no problem taking out bad actors on the other side of the globe, whether via drone or all out invasion.

It's the nation building, democracy building, police actions that are the issue. Not that they are not needed, but in my modified Monroe Doctrine approach, the effort, energy, and expense would be relative to proximity balanced with risk/reward of intrevention.

Ex: Trying to nation build in Afghanistan with all it's historical (centuries) of challenges, while we let Venezuela & Central America degrade? We intervene due to corrupt governments on the other side of the world, but ignore Mexico?

Remember, Venezuela has larger oil reserves than even Saudi Arabia. Twenty years ago Venezuela was a US vacation destination!

Relative risks? Since 9/11 timeframe it is estimated that over 60,000 Mexican drug cartel related deaths have occurred. And that number is considered most likely to be low! On average, a citizen in the Mexican state of Chihuahua (adjacent to the US) is 9x more likely to die a violent death than an Afghan resident.

Again, I'm not saying we should not be fighting terror wherever it occurs. Just that we demonstrate very selective focus on where we intervene, and in some aspects I think we may have miscalled that.

As mentioned earlier, my foreign policy oriented DS tells me I'm wrong. Asks what exactly would we do in VE/MX? I say heavy NGO activity/money. Maybe covert/overt action on key corrupt leaders. Use their own approach "Plata o Plomo"

A prime example was the Marine "Wrong turn" situation in MX. We should have played hardball... quickly issued an ultimatum on funding, etc.

But that's just my view as a curmudgeon. Instead, we'll pursue foreign policy that let's Saudi as an ally commit human rights violations worse than countries we condemn. Let Yemen fall, but spend billions of $$ and precious lives on Afghanistan. And let Iran go nuclear.
 
As mentioned earlier, my foreign policy oriented DS tells me I'm wrong.

Not taking any pot shot at you DS as a cadet should be more knowledgable than a high school student, did he mention what foreign policy or doctrine the current administration is following or who pays? In an academic setting or this forum, very easy to discuss what we should do, but any foreign policy decision requires things eventually - from a Sec of State traveling to over 100 countries, several trillion dollars, to many lost lives.

If your son ever deploys, he should end up asking himself what I am doing here. His answer should be more than I was ordered to, as he might end up explaining to his soldiers why.
 
Not taking any pot shot at you DS as a cadet should be more knowledgable than a high school student, did he mention what foreign policy or doctrine the current administration is following or who pays? In an academic setting or this forum, very easy to discuss what we should do, but any foreign policy decision requires things eventually - from a Sec of State traveling to over 100 countries, several trillion dollars, to many lost lives.

I have more than one son, only one of which is a cadet. But your point is still valid.

My position is that we are pushing a rope in the middle east, largely for Europe's benefit. With a target population that is culturally and tribally predisposed against democracy. And with allies that have worse human rights records than some of our enemies.

His reaction to my modified Monroe Doctrine comment was more of a "life is not that simple, the US cannot become isolationist". Much like some of the comments prior to yours. And also that we would never take the step or be allowed to intervene in VE, Central America, Cuba, etc. Which I don't entirely agree with.

Which is most people's reaction when they hear "Monroe Doctrine". But there were 2-3 dimensions to MD, and it's corollaries in later years by Teddy, etc. But at the heart of it was the concept we will apply more weight to actions close to home than far away, all other things being equal.

His key point was that even if the US was oil independent via strong relation with Venezuela or similar, we could not ignore the middle east as it would:
  1. have very large impact on Europe our allies and
  2. independent of ally status, we could not afford to have their economies crash, we are too independent. (and to a lesser extent, same for pacific basin)
  3. Even just higher oil prices in the middle east would still impact the US as our oil is still impacted by market prices.
Somewhat valid points. I think #3 could be managed without getting protectionist or too much constraint on free trade. But would take a different relationship with big oil than we currently have.

In the interest of discussion, here's my modified Monroe Doctrine for the 21st century:
  1. We reserve the right to take out bad guys any time, any where we believe pose security risks to the US
  2. We reserve the right to intervene based on human rights impact. (Generally combined with #1)
  3. All other things being equal, we will focus extreme nation building type activity more on:
    • Countries closer to home, based on risk (security) & reward (trade) impact
    • Countries not culturally/tribally opposed to democracy & rule of law (with multiple Green on Blue events a clear litmus test that the country is not aligned enough to stay involved)
  4. We will support our allies, but only to the extent they are also willing to commit. (Barring higher priority from 1-3 above). No more proxy wars. No more fighting on their behalf if they are not willing to commit unless it is of significant benefit to the US to justify the risk
  5. Historical relationships will not trump 1-4 if they become out of alignment. (Ex: Turkey or Egypt swinging toward Sharia law). Nor will UN votes.
  6. We will influence and guide situations covertly or overtly to keep them on track rather than ignore and then have a large problem to deal with. Again- a clear Silver (trade/Aid) or Lead (Covert or Overt economic/military action) choice
Again, this would never happen. Maybe would not work. Entirely moot point, submitted only for entertainment value. Your Mileage may very. Batteries not included. Contents may settle.

This is not something I actively champion, advocate or promote. Just the opinion from a curmudgeon on how things should work. (And the first time I've written it down)

If your son ever deploys, he should end up asking himself what I am doing here. His answer should be more than I was ordered to, as he might end up explaining to his soldiers why.

My cadet son would agree 100%, and it has influenced his studies. And to a certain extent, USMA forces that in their current ethics, history, and similar required core coursework. There is still a balance though, as it's also drilled into their head that they have to support the Commander in Chief, through their chain of command, even if they don't agree with the action as long as it's a lawful order.
 
Back
Top