Harry Targ
Extracted
and revised from:
https://mronline.org/2019/10/23/united-states-foreign-policy-yesterday-today-and-tomorrow/
The US Pursuit of Empire
Taking “the long view” of United States foreign policy, it
is clear that from NSC-68; to the response to the Soviet challenges in space
such as during the Sputnik era; to global wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan,
and Iraq; to covert interventions in the Middle East, Latin America, Asia, and
Africa, the United States has pursued global hegemony. And foreign policy
influentials, such as a recent Council on Foreign Relations position paper
suggests, regard the maintenance of global power the main priority of foreign
policy in the years ahead. It is also clear that the pursuit of empire has, of
necessity, involved the creation of a permanent war economy, an economy that
overcomes economic stagnation by the infusion of enormous military
expenditures.
It is also clear that justification for empire and military spending has
necessitated the construction of an enemy, first the Soviet Union and
international communism; then terrorism; and now China. The obverse of a
demonic enemy requires a conception of self to justify the imperial project.
That self historically has been various iterations of American exceptionalism,
the indispensable nation, US humanitarianism, and implicitly or explicitly the
superiority of the white race and western civilization.
In this light, while specific policies vary, the trajectory of US foreign
policy in the twenty-first century is a continuation of the policies and
programs that were institutionalized in the twentieth century. Three seem
primary. First, military spending, particularly in new technologies, continues
unabated. And a significant Council on Foreign Relations report raises the
danger of the United States “falling behind,” the same metaphor that was used
by the writers of the NSC-68 document, or the Gaither and Rockefeller Reports composed in the late 1950s to challenge President
Eisenhower’s worry about a military/industrial complex, the response to
Sputnik, Secretary of Defense McNamara’s transformation of the Pentagon to
scientific management in the 1960s, or President Reagan’s huge increase of
armaments in the 1980s to overcome the “window of vulnerability.”
Second, the United States continues to engage in policies recently referred to
as “hybrid wars.” The concept of hybrid wars suggests that while traditional
warfare between nations has declined, warfare within countries has increased.
Internal wars, the hybrid wars theorists suggest, are encouraged and supported
by covert interventions, employing private armies, spies, and other operatives
financed by outside nations like the United States. Also the hybrid wars
concept also refers to the use of economic warfare, embargoes and blockades, to
bring down adversarial states and movements. The blockades of Cuba, Venezuela,
and Iran are examples. So, the hybrid war concept suggests that wars are
carried out by other, less visible, means.
Third, much of the discourse on the US role in the world replicates the
bipolar, super power narrative of the Cold War. Only now the enemy is China. As
Alfred McCoy has pointed out (In the Shadows of the American Empire,
2017), the United States in the twenty first century sees its economic hegemony
being undermined by Chinese economic development and global reach. To challenge
this, McCoy argues, the United States has taken on a project to recreate its
military hegemony: AI, a space force, biometrics, new high tech aircraft etc.
If the US cannot maintain its hegemony economically, it will have to do so
militarily. This position is the centerpiece of the recent CFR Task Force
Report.
Imperial Policies in Trump's First Term
Recognizing these continuities in United States foreign policy, commentators
appropriately recognized the idiosyncrasies of foreign policy in the first
Trump administration. He reached out to North Korea and Russia (which had
the potential of reducing tensions in Asia and Central Europe). He rhetorically
claimed that the United States should withdraw military forces from trouble
spots around the world, including the Middle East. He declared that the United
States could not be “the policeman of the world,” a declaration made by former
President Nixon as he escalated bombing of Vietnam and initiated plans to
overthrow the Allende regime in Chile. Some of these measures which seemed o contradict the Cold War
policy agenda Trump was inappropriately criticized by Democrats and others.
Tension-reduction on the Korean Peninsula, for example, should have been
encouraged.
However, while Trump moved in one direction, he almost
immediately undermined the policies he has ordered. His announced withdrawal
from Syria, while in the abstract a sign of a more realistic assessment of US
military presence in the Middle East was coupled with a direct or implied
invitation to the Turkish military to invade Northeast Syria to defeat the
Kurds. Also, at the same time he was withdrawing troops from Syria, the Defense
Department announced the United States was sending support troops to Saudi
Arabia. He withdrew from the accord with Iran on nuclear weapons and the Paris
Climate Change agreement. Time after time, one foreign policy decision is
contradicted by another. These contradictions occurred over and over with
allies as well as traditional adversaries. Sometimes policies seemed to be made
with little historical awareness and without sufficient consultation with
professional diplomats.
Imperial
Policies in the Second Trump Term
Candidate Trump ran for
reelection in 2024 claiming that the US role in the world (at least
outside the Western Hemisphere) should be reduced. His would adopt an
"America First" strategy.
During his first year he engaged in tariff wars, supported
dramatic increases in military expenditures, and under the guise of pursuing
peace gave support to Israel in its genocidal war against the Palestinian
people and continued both to support the Ukrainian military effort and
negotiations with the Russians as brutal war in Ukraine continued. And after
the administration issued its National Security Strategy Document in November,
2025, largely endorsed the drive for remaining the hegemonic power in the Western
Hemisphere (the Monroe Doctrine 2 or the "Donroe Doctrine") while
calling for arming the world to challenge growing Chinese power.
And while the world continued to process Trump's blustery
statements, contradictory calls to action, seemingly words and acts to insult
the traditional allies, a veritable "mad man" approach to US foreign
policy, he made war on Venezuela and carried out the kidnapping of Venezuela's
President and wife.
Subsequently, he has alluded to taking out regimes in Cuba,
Colombia, and Mexico, running the Venezuelan government-particularly its oil
sector, and seizing Greenland from NATO ally, Denmark.
Processing the Trump foreign policies one is reminded of
the old Nixon idea, the so-called “madman theory.” "Trump thinks that he can frighten and thus deter opponents by appearing unhinged—an idea that political scientists call the madman theory. As Trump once boasted, Chinese President Xi Jinping would never risk a blockade of Taiwan while he is president because Xi “knows I’m fucking crazy,"
(Nixon allegedly wanted to
appear mad so that adversaries would be deterred from acting in ways contrary
to US interests out of fear of random responses). For a useful
discussion of the "madman theory" see below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory#:~:text=International%20relations%20scholars%20have%20been,failed%20to%20win%20coercive%20disputes.)
Working for Peace in the 21st Century
The contradictory character of Trump foreign policy has left the peace movement
befuddled. How does it respond to Trump’s occasional acts that go against the
traditional imperial grain while he acts impetuously increasing the dangers of
war? How does the peace movement participate in the construction of a
progressive majority that justifiably seeks to overturn the Trump era and all
that it stands for: climate disaster, growing economic inequality, racism,
sexism, homophobia, and hybrid war? Perhaps the task for the peace movement is
to include, in the project of building a progressive majority, ideas about
challenging the US as an imperial power, proclaiming that a progressive agenda
requires the dismantling of the permanent war economy.
Without illusions, the peace movement must participate in politics: which
includes the electoral arena and lobbying for policy changes including
rekindling the War Powers Act and cutting the trillion dollar military budget..
Articulating a peace agenda, demanding that politicians running for office at
all levels embrace it, and convincingly demonstrating that politicians who
embrace it will be held accountable. Meanwhile, by articulating a peace
platform, activists will be participating in a broad educational effort to
construct a majority “people for peace.”
Finally, peace and social justice movements must articulate
and embrace truly global policies of solidarity in the spirit of the
Non-aligned Movement, the Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, commitments to
human rights, environmental protections, and support for those movements
in the Global South that are pursuing the rights of sovereignty and social and
economic development. While flawed the United Nations system, with its
multiplicity of political, social, economic, and legal organizations provide
the skeletal form of a New World Order.
These are truly troubled times, with to a substantial degree the survival of
humanity and nature at stake. The war system is a significant part of
what the struggle is about and every avenue must be used to challenge it.
Whether it is the mad men theory or traditional imperialism that drives US
pursuit of global hegemony or both, it must be stopped.
