At what point in history did American foreign policy become so... brutal? Americans frame themselves as the arsenal of democracy and as fighting just wars, but the actions of the United States seem indistinguishable from any other hegemonic power, except maybe in rationalization or framing. Was it always values at home and realpolitik abroad - not to wake up /pol/ obviously I don't want this to be about 2016, just about historical trends that seem pretty obvious to anyone who has a more than surface level of knowledge.
Ike warned us about the military industrial complex while setting the groundwork for it and assassinating the rulers of newly free african nations. I can go farther back to the spanish-american war and the other acquisitions of the late imperial era, or go forward to vietnam, iran-contra, etc. etc.; But everywhere I look in antebellum american history, it seems like the broad trend is (from an american perspective anyway) is to ignore the warmongering or fucking with the internal affairs of latin american countries, and focus either on internal injustices (sufferage, civil rights, etc) or to focus on the big european wars we fought in (often while masking the role we played in creating or supporting those wars, or our desire to profit financially or in terms of power from them).
I guess what I'm asking is, was it this way from the start? I know the founders were men who carried dreams and ideals but also held slaves, and I respect them as men of their time. but behind closed doors were they also just counting their pocketbooks and putting pins on maps? if it wasn't this way from the start, what changed it? the civil war? the growth of global capitalism linked with empire? some ideology i am missing?
pic unrelated it was either sad john mccain or a screenshot from dota
war is a defining factor of human conduct, but war with europe is bad for the economy so they fought non-europeans
Bentley Cox
"A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired." -Thomas Jefferson
Jace Roberts
Tee bee aytch, American foreign policy isn't nearly as coordinated or intelligent as most other hegemons.
You can say what you will about our methods, but Americans are very careful to ensure that we don't benefit in any way from the wars we get into.
Logan Robinson
Spanish American War Dan Carlin has a really good podcast about how American interests and imperialism began to clash with the ideals so strongly ingrained into the nation.
Gavin Robinson
This, but there was a pause during the Great Depression where there was no money to go do imperial things.
Alexander Powell
And general isololationist sentiment throughout the country. The american public was largely against involvement in the world wars.
Ian Adams
Up until Pearl Harbor, then the full rage of the American people was blasted into the world
Mason Bailey
Reagan Before that The US was more pragmatic
David Jackson
Ask the indians, it's been brutal since the country was formed.
Jack Harris
>US was more pragmatic before Reagan Wat
Ian Jones
>he doesn't know about the banana republics
You think it's a coincidence our southern neighbor doesn't have any strong powers that are able to push back against the US? That's by design.
Austin Cooper
Since the very beginning. Even in the American Revolution the Rebels tried to take Quebec for themselves. Don't fall for the face saving tactics of countries. All countries take what they think they can get with minimal damage. America is no exception.
Andrew Hall
It's 90% because the Spanish can't create functional countries.
The remaining 10% is evenly split between America and various Marxist organizations.
Gavin Nelson
This tbqh
Caleb Ramirez
Maybe those prairie niggers shouldn't have been living on American land?
Alexander Butler
I would say teddy roosevelt
Cameron Watson
I hate Reagan, and you're still retarded.
Caleb Morris
There's no way you can blame it all on the Spanish. It's almost impossible to separate colonial mismanagement from postcolonial meddling from straight geography (mountainous areas tend to lead small countries like the estates ruled by the caudillos).
I've never really thought of this as an expansionist attempt. It was a military venture undertaken against a colonial power in attempt to weaken them strategically by supporting local separatists. I don't see how it's much different from the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam or the liberation of Peru by San Martin and Bolivar.
Ian Turner
You're asking this question because you don't know what the end goal of american foreign policy is. From the very beginning, from the revolution til now, american foreign policy has been dictated by one thing and one thing only and that's free trade. Every diplomatic and military action taken by the US has been to ensure navigable waters and free trade with any nation at any time. Once you look at both historic and current American foreign policy through this prism every action the US has taken will make much more sense. It's also why I believe that war with china is inevitable due to the South China Sea situation. It's imperialism in a way but more for the sake of ensuring continued trade.
Evan Reyes
...
Jayden Phillips
do you think if there was a stronger latin or south american state the US would look less impressive? Brazil is kinda like a southern hemisphere USA except they didn't deforest their land and exterminate all their natives (its a work in progress)
I suppose this is a dumb oversight on my part huh. then again I've read that a lot of the early native depopulation was probably due to unintentional exchanges (diseases wiping out a lot of the Pre-Colombian north american societies, for instance) and a lot of the true brutalities were after the revolution and confederacy period. I know the first thanksgiving is a mythological spin, but earlier native relations were characterized by restraint on the part of the british and early confederate governments. part of the reason for the revolution was the british desire to reign in encroachment onto native land since it was costing them a fortune.
I mean, I know about free trade; there's a reason our navy can secure every ocean on the planet at once with a force equivalent to the size of nearly every other world navy. but I guess I don't see how, say, acquiring the Philippines or attacking the North Vietnamese anti-french colonialists plays into free trade. in the former case, it was only after we gave them independence that we could truly exploit them, and in the latter ho chi minh originally asked america for help to create a free state. instead america went to war not to protect a people from colonialism but initially to support a colonial regime, and then to fight communism once we drove all the non-collaborator Vietnamese away.
your point about china makes no sense. we go to war with our biggest trading partner to ensure free trade??
I suppose this isn't wrong either.
ty for an interesting thread anons i've enjoyed being drunk/high and reading your answers I look forward to tomorrow mid-day when I wake up and see what our yurofriends think.
Joseph Foster
To answer you're point on china first it's all about precedent. China is quite literally building sovereign islands in the middle of contested waters that happen to be near some of the heaviest trafficked shipping lanes in the world. On top of that putting military installations on them and not just them but other regional powers as well. If the situation escalates you could end up seeing total militarization and inaccessibility of previously free and open international waters. Vid related
Amerca did (almost) nothing wrong. The US imperialism meme is way overblown. Imperialism means invading and staying, not fucking off as soon as fucking possible. Compare that with the UK's tenure as superpower, we had to be fucking forced out 90% of the time and we never left easily. Whereas America is only too keen to pull a houdini and therefore leaves a mess behind precisely because they don't want to look like the bad guys and they never finish the job properly as a result. Kissinger almost did his best to make the US look as bad as possible but I'm not gonna judge an entire country's foreign policy resume by only a couple of decades. Superpowers do dirty shit behind the scenes, that's literally life. As far as superpowers go, it could be a whole lot fucking worse if we had Russia or China instead.
OP is right in one respect though, some countries genuinely don't care for the democracy meme as much as we westerners do. But the US is fucked no matter what they do. Intervene and you're literally Hitler, don't intervene and zomg you're letting innicent chidrun die :(((((
Really gets the nogging jogging
All in all I rate 9/11
Hunter Martinez
As for vietnam, it was basically french appeasement and the drug trade that got the us in there. The french were on the US's side but were still arrogant enough to go their own way if the US turned their backs on them or hurt their pride in any way. Alienating the french would fuck with US geopolitical designs so going in was the best option. This is speculation on my part but i believe US knew full well that Ho Chi Minh was simply anti colonial and probably sympathized with them but france was more important plus it opened up the golden triangle and ensuing heroin trade and other CIA shenanigens
Jason Gomez
Well It had a chance of being concluded in 1968 at the Paris accords but kissinger was set lose to sabotage the talks so Nixon could run on a platform that the war still needed sorting out. God I hate kissinger.
Charles Harris
1789.
Jonathan Foster
Lmao
Carson Gomez
Wasn't Kissinger one of THE best foreign policy experts the USA has ever had? sure guy got his hands dirty but who didn't?
also has anyone here ever watched Fog of War (its an errol morris doc about MacNamara)? its a great doc and I'd rec it if not. really got the almonds activated when it came to thinking about Vietnam and its legacy.
The Spanish-American War was a turning point IMO. Before that they only had wars with their direct neighbours and only rarely, but afterwards they went full-on imperialist by annexing the Phillipines, Hawaii and Panama. Ever since then they've been meddling all over the glove.
Elijah Miller
Nah I'm all for realpolitik but that cunt was abject as fuck. His role in the fall of east timor is honestky sickening.
And prolonging a war for election brownie points is pretty fucking evil lad, it's just corrupt.
Brayden Mitchell
I wouldn't blame it all on the Spanish, but I'd definitely blame 80-90% of it on them.
The Americans didn't bring the hacienda system of agriculture or that weird racial caste system, or the Catholic Church, or any of the other social factors that make Latin American societies so dysfunctional.
William Harris
...
Josiah Brown
Yeah, it's not like that a destabilized ME ensured that any non american powers would not take root in the region when the new millenium started.
Ayden Hall
The Chinese ended up getting all of the oil contracts for Iraq.
The US wants the Middle East to fuck off and stop bombing them so that it can concentrate on places that actually matter like the South China Sea.
Ethan Clark
>it's another marxist revisionist history episode
Luis Garcia
>The joke > > > >Your head
Charles Sullivan
Fucking around in the middle east for two decades probably isn't the best way to have them fuck off.
The fact of the matter is the US doesn't have any coordinated long term goals for the middle east. It's policy and strategy changes regularly and its done nothing but long term harm and backlash.
