People in the U.S. and around the world are wondering "Why isn't the U.S. more involved in the human rights struggles in (pick a county)."
I have to wonder why were are involved at all.
If Ahmed and friends want to overthrow their government, what does it matter to me?
If Juan or Alexander want to force a regime change, why is this of interest to me?
OK, the obvious answer is the U.S. covets the county's resources.
But we HAVE most of the resources within our borders. We have oil and gas and we have technology - that should have been developed decades ago - to replace fossil fuels.
We seem to have forgotten a little bit of a speech issued in 1823 by a fellow named James Monroe.
Monroe was president of the U.S. at the time, and the snippet from the speech has come down to us as the Monroe Doctrine.
Basically the Monroe Doctrine told European governments to stay out of the U.S.' presumed sphere of influence - the "New World" and the U.S., in return, would refrain from meddling in European powers' activities.
But by extension, the Monroe Doctrine set up a "non-interference" rule for the U.S. government that we, less or more, followed for many years.
The Monroe Doctrine is a policy of the United States introduced on December 2, 1823. It stated that further efforts by European countries to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas would be viewed as acts of aggression requiring U.S. intervention The Monroe Doctrine asserted that the Western Hemisphere was not to be further colonized by European countries but that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued at a time when many Latin American countries were on the verge of becoming independent from the Spanish Empire, and the United States, reflecting concerns raised by Great Britain[clarification needed], hoped to avoid having any European power take over Spain's colonies.
The US President, James Monroe, first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. It became a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets, and would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and others.
It would have been nearly impossible for Monroe to envision that its intent and impact would persist with only minor variations for almost two centuries. Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and control (thus ensuring US national security). The doctrine put forward that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, for they were composed of entirely separate and independent nations.
Wikipedia, http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
There were some notable exceptions, the Boxer Rebellion being one. The World Wars presented a threat to the U.S. that justified entering those conflicts, while the rebellion in China is at best questionable.
So where does the U.S. get off telling, for example, Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi to head for the hills? Or, for that matter, to tell Fidel Castro and friends to quit Cuba? Did the U.S. tell Chairman Mao to move aside for Chang?
Who in the U.S. government has the chutzpah to tell Benny Netanyahu to order a halt to building in Israel or to promise to take away a part of a nation's capital - Jerusalem - and give it to that nation's sworn enemy?
What legitimate power invited the U.S. into Iraq? Or Afghanistan? If the U.S. was justified because these nations had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) why don't we invade other countries with WMDs? Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, all great examples.
Did we invade because the 9-11 (2001) terrorists came from, or were hiding out in Iran or Afghanistan? If that's the case, why doesn't the U.S. invade Morocco (where most of the attackers were born) or Saudia which allegedly funded the terrorists or Iran that provides their jihadist impetus?
- There was a time when a U.S. action against al-Gaddafi was appropriate; then there was proof that he was involved in the bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 in 1988. (Republican Ronald Regan was in the White House.)
There was a time when a U.S. action was appropriate against Iran - one was tried and botched during Democrat James Earl Carter, Jr.'s time in the Oval Office.
For me the bottom line is that the U.S. needs to revisit the Monroe Doctrine. It needs to stop interfering in people's lives; stop being the world's policeman.
The people of the U.S. threw off the British crown in 1776. It took a war to do it, but the people, with a little help from the French, managed.
The French managed to cast off their royalty without the U.S. military stepping in.
The Poles finally emerged from Russian rule; the only things the U.S. provided were unfulfilled promises.
When a people want to change the way things work, they somehow manage.
It might take time and it might take some surreptitious support from the U.S., but the U.S., in my mind, should not be telling any government to step down nor should it be selecting a replacement government.
That's not the U.S.' job and the U.S. should already know it usually doesn't do anything but give the U.S. a political black eye.
Egyptians forced Hosni Mubarak out.
Algerians forced the French to flee.
Jordanians convinced King Abdullah II to initiate government reforms.
These people succeeded sans U.S. interference.
The Libyans will succeed, if they do succeed, without U.S. interference or pronouncements from Washington D.C..
The Monroe Doctrine was good policy in 1823; it is good policy in 2011.
The U.S. needs to get, and keep, its own house in order and cease meddling in other people's affairs.
