Policing the World In a Nutshell

American foreign policy, when it comes to foreign intervention in conflict zones or war torn countries, is deeply rooted in a mentality established at the turn of the 20th century. In fact, one can argue that interventionism has its ultimate precedent not in American adventurism overseas, but the protection of our Manifest Destiny in our own, domestic sphere of influence.

If you don't like a history lesson, go to the bottom of the blog post...

President James Monroe penned the Monroe Doctrine in in 1823 as a veiled threat to colonizing European nations that they could not set up camp in United States' territory. While both sides claimed victory in the War of 1812, the United States emerged from this era (The Era of Good Feeling, as it has been called) with a sense of birthright to the entire continent, and no matter how powerful a colonial force was, we could muster the might to defeat them. We had beat back the British twice (debatable), stared down European impressment (kidnapping of US sailors) and even took out some Barbary pirates ("shores of Tripoli."). In summary, we had a big head about ourselves. 

Fast forward eight decades later, President Theodore Roosevelt (TR) updated the Monroe Doctrine with the Roosevelt Corollary. Deeply rooted in a policy of International Progressivism (not the progressivism of this era, although there are some similarities) expanded the US "sphere of influence" to include South America. In TR's humble opinion, chaos caused due to recent interventions in South America by European colonials seeking payments from debt heavy countries lead to hemispheric disarray. If the US was the arbiter of regional disputes and protector of the Western Hemisphere from wandering Europeans, all things would remain calm. Like former president William McKinley, TR was a fan of Alfred T Mahan and his book The Influence of Sea Power on History. He mixed the need for naval bases and international trade (as the book instructs) with Progressivism to create a foreign policy that helped user the US onto the world stage militarily and economically. 

During McKinley's presidency, the US declared war on, and defeated Spain. In doing so, the US received temporary control over Cuba and the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. TR, against his own aversion to chaos, agreed (early in the 20th Century) to foment a popular revolution in Panama to obtain the land to build the Panama Canal. TR also employed JP Morgan to intervene on Venezuela's debt problem with Germany (and other European nations) and negotiated the peace treaty between Russia and Japan (after the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War) in front of the US Navy in Portsmouth Harbor (he won a Nobel Peace Prize for that one). All of these events cemented the role of the US as both an expansionist power and a believer in interventionist foreign policy if there was a benefit or threat to the country. 

Subsequent presidents, from Taft to FDR would have to deal with the consequences of being involved in South America, Philippines and eventually Europe. President Taft used Dollar Diplomacy to exert US military might to protect trade routes (rooted in Roosevelt Corollary), Woodrow Wilson used his "14-points" to form the League of Nations (the US did not join), President Coolidge became the first president to visit Cuba, Allied powers passed the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawing war (that went well), went through an era of isolationism and eventually intervened in Europe to stop Nazism and in the Pacific to stem Japanese Imperialism. 

During the Cold War, the US viewed the world as split between the powers of Freedom (The US and European Allies) and the evil, monolithic, socialist states led by the Soviet Union and China. Foreign policy during this era was represented by proxy wars of various sizes and clandestine operations under the guise of Gunboat Diplomacy. We intervened with military might or CIA operation to stymie the supposed spread of socialism and the "falling of the dominoes" in Europe. If socialism was able to get a foothold in Europe and South America, the rest of the world would fall like dominoes. This kind of foreign policy was challenged by two dilemmas: Was a socialist leader was a nationalist (Titoism) or were they part of the evil empire (Soviet Union, et al)? How can we harmonize our need to foster democracy when a democratizing state turns to socialism?   

After the fall of the Wall, interventionism was used again to protect national security and, in some cases, as a moral imperative. During the H.W. Bush administration, we intervened in Kuwait to stop Saddam Hussein. During the Clinton Administration we sent troops into Somalia to capture a dictator and intervened in Eastern Europe to stop ethnic cleansing. We did not intervene during the Rawandan Genocide, which is something that Clinton regrets to this day.  

After 9/11 and the beginning of the War on Terror, the Cold War foreign policy of containment and brinksmanship was replaced (and adapted) to fight against terrorists across the Middle East who had no country of origin. Because the United States was no longer fighting a single state, but groups who passed over borders and blended in with the population, security apparatus to ensure against further attacks translated into nearly unprecedented attacks on civil liberties. While we received international support in ousting the Taliban in Afghanistan (perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks), we did not have full international backing when we invaded Iraq to secure WMDs. 

Why is this important? 

The newest challenge the United States faces in the war torn Middle East is the Arab Spring. It combines all the challenges that past presidents of the 20th century faced when intervening in a conflict zone. Dictators, some who are family of US-backed regimes, are being overthrown by popular democratic movements. While we continue to support the spread of popularly elected governments, by the people for the people, we face a challenge of the rising tide of Islamic extremism. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, who are fervently opposed to the state of Israel, have taken up leadership positions after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. In Libya, a NATO-backed removal of Muammar Gaddafi has left a power vacuum.

As of last week, the Obama Administration has decided to arm rebels fighting a 17 month war against President Assad in Syria. As of late, the death toll has been over 100,000 with a confirmation that Assad used deadly Serin gas on his own people. Assad is the son of a military dictator in a country created by colonial powers. The rebels are a mix of moderate and extremist Islamic fighters who are fighting for control of their country. But, if control of the country means the installation of an Islamist state with strict application of Sharia Law, the Administration would be held accountable for another regime that is violently opposed to the US and the existence of Israel. Worse yet, the US might lose control of Syria's deadly chemical weapon stockpiles. 

Obama faces a familiar extension of US foreign policy. It is the age-old trade-off between the support of a populist fight against a anti-democratic regime and the consequences of that support. The Administration must prove to the American people that intervention, even if by indirect military action, both maintains our security and is a moral imperative.