Meaning of national security
Spreading democracy is one of the mantra's of U.S. foreign policy. Austrians, of course, know otherwise. The military is often used not for alturistic aims, but to secure the financial interests of unscrupulous firms that have an influence over government policy.
I found a most frank example in a recent article in The Economist, "The view from abroad," dated 19 Feb. 2005
"Latin Americans may think they have better reasons to harbour a grudge. Mexico, for instance, lost about half its territory to the United States in the war of 1846-48. In the BBC survey last month, only 11% of the Mexicans polled had a mainly favourable view of the influence of their northern neighbour, less even than the proportion of Argentines, who are in other respects even more hostile. Cubans have resented the United States ever since 1898, when their hard- and long-fought war of independence against Spain was in effect stolen from them by the yanquis prosecuting the Spanish-American war. The United States then made some 30 military interventions in and around the Caribbean in the next 30 years, many of them under Smedley Butler, a marine corps general, who summed up his career thus:
I helped make Honduras “right� for American fruit companies in 1903. I helped make Mexico...safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street...I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China, I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
Point, set, match I suppose.
For an extended treatment of the malevolent bent of U.S. foreign policy, take a look at Rothbard's Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy, available on Mises.org.
It is one of the most influential books on the subject I have ever read.
Comments (6)
The reason why few Mexicans have a favorable view of the United States is because all the Mexicans who did have a favorable view of the United States risked life and limb and now are living in the United States.
Published: February 24, 2005 4:08 PM
Though it is both true and tragic that since the Monroe Doctorine, the United States has thrown its military weight around the hemisphere. However, do not trivialize the good things that the American armed forces have done. We put out the fire that was Europe in 1917, saved the world from Hitler in 45, and held the Russian Bear at bay for 40 years.
Published: February 25, 2005 12:30 AM
The cold war was the longest time of peace in the last century. It's funny, because if you read the brits opinion about us, it would seem that we are this totalitarian rouge state, yet is isn't our citizens who are being dragged off to fat prison!
Published: February 25, 2005 1:07 AM
For Brian -
The USA did not save the war effort in 1917; it helped, and shortened things, but it did not tip the balance. But it (through Wilson and through cutting short Wilson, both) caused harm (see below).
The USA did only part of the anti-Hitler work in 1945; it's arguable whether Britain or the USA come in second or third place, but definitely the USSR came first. But the USA had largely caused the instability of the inter-war years.
Similarly, the failures of the inter-war years were largely responsible for the USSR being what it was in the post-war period.
Any (real) credit always needs to be netted off to see whether the USA deserves praise or blame. It is certain that what the USA is doing right now is a consequence of foolish undercutting of the European retreat from colonialism.
Published: February 25, 2005 1:56 AM
It's not clear that it did either help or shorten WWI. According to some (Hoppe?), US entry into WWI extended and inflamed the war, which otherwise would have ended with a negotiated treaty a year or more earlier, and forced the Versailles treaty without which Hitler and WWII wouldn't have happened.
Published: February 25, 2005 6:00 AM
Saying Mexico had half of their country taken by the US is like saying the Dutch Afrikaaners had their South African lands taken by the British. Both groups were invaders grabbing land. To say that one invader had a better claim than the other is just silly.
Keith
Published: February 25, 2005 6:49 AM