At the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars, the crowned heads of Europe went about getting their affairs in order regarding their colonial possessions, or in the case of Latin America, the former colonies of Spain and Portugal.
The Age of Napoleon forever changed the fate of both the Old and New Worlds. The end result in Europe were more restrictive regimes, reactionary to their core. While Europe was engaged in generational slaughter by one megalomaniac seeking to overturn centuries of presumptuous Divine Right, the people of the New World were freeing themselves from their Old World overlords. Haiti, led by Touissant L'Ouverture, victorious against a distracted Napoleon. Revolution led by Bolivar and San Martin set the modern boundaries of Latin America and then Mexico broke free.
Spain wanted its colonies back. Their allies were looking to help. That is, except for the British. The British were benefiting economically from a fractured Latin America free from Spain. Foreign Secretary, George Canning proposed to then Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams that our two countries declare a pact to defend against European intervention.
John Quincy Adams pondered the proposition and instead opted and recommended to President Monroe that we issue a separate statement, independent of Britain. The master stroke was Adams knowledge that the piddling United States Navy could never have enforced what has come to be known as "The Monroe Doctrine". Sheer brilliance because he knew that British interests compelled their enforcing the new found sovereignty of the Latin nations with the best navy in the world. He issued a bold declaration, without committing the manpower or the funds to enforce it. It has been the linchpin of American foreign policy in the western hemisphere ever since.
I mention all of this as a matter of history to express my disdain for every statement on military or diplomatic matters by the President of the United States as becoming a "doctrine". There was the "Truman Doctrine", "The Bush Doctrine", and now the "Obama Doctrine". Enough already.
First of all, in the intense partisan atmosphere, one President's doctrine is anothers' toilet paper. When the Monroe Doctrine was issued, we were a young republic. When the Truman Doctrine was affected, we were emerging as a reluctant superpower emerging victorious against Fascism and facing the dawn of Stalinist Russia and the Soviet Union.
The current state,condition and role of the United States in the world with all its power precludes the necessity of issuing "doctrines". Former President Bush and current President Obama cannot be said to have issued a doctrine explicitly, but clearly both have been foolishly referred to as such.
A doctrine had merits in a more conventional world with conventional means of resolving conflicts. In the modern world such a notion has no worth. The world moves too rapidly and means to convey destruction too swift in its application that old diplomatic models no longer apply.
Would John Quincy Adams have authored "The Monroe Doctrine" if he had the means to enforce it? There's no way of knowing that obviously, but history shows that power trumps promises every time.
Let's officially retire the archaic concept of doctrines and spare ourselves unnecessary grief in defense of our national interests. Of course where Obama's concerned, a phony doctrine may be necessary because Libya certainly is not in our national interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment