I am sure that we all remember Dear Leader’s threats to North Korea’s Kim…the “Fire and Fury” thingy…..well he, Dear Leader, did not stop there he has extended his bullying to Iran…..
Over the weekend he had a meltdown and started yelling (through CAPS) on Twitter….. “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE,” he wrote. “WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”
That is what we foreign policy wonks call “Gunboat Diplomacy”…..now what does that mean?
“Gunboat diplomacy” refers to a foreign policy that relies on force or the threat of force. To some extent, such an approach to foreign policy has always existed between empires and nations. But in the American political lexicon the term is most commonly applied to U.S. foreign policy in the Caribbean, Central America, and the northern tier of South America during the first three decades of the 20th century. Thereafter, this policy gave way to the “Good Neighbor Policy” formulated first by Herbert Hoover and then put into practice by Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereby the United States would commit to refraining from armed intervention in Latin America.
One of the first examples of American gunboat diplomacy was the mission of Comm. Matthew C. Perry, who steamed with eight ships, one-third of the U.S. Navy, to “open” Japan to trade with the United States in 1853. When Perry returned, as promised, the next year, the Tokugawa Shogunate agreed to the Treaty of Kanagawa in part out of recognition of what unbridled European powers were doing in nearby China. Naval shows-of-force followed in Korea, Hawaii, and China.
Teddy’s “Carry a big stick” was an extension of Gunboat Diplomacy”……I refresh my readers memory because it appears that Dear Leader is reverting back to this type of foreign policy……
The situation in Latin America is becoming more volatile….Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc…….How will Dear Leader handle the coming crisis?
News media outlets are abuzz with reports that President Trump told aides in August 2017 to prepare a contingency plan for U.S. military intervention in Venezuela. The president apparently indicated considerable interest in that option. His security advisers reportedly pushed back firmly, arguing that resorting to military force would have significant adverse repercussions. For example, they warned it could cause a surge of anti-U.S. sentiment throughout the Western Hemisphere. Although their opposition caused the president to put his flirtation with that drastic measure on hold, there is no evidence that he has renounced it. Indeed, given the worrisome political, economic, and security developments in Venezuela, Central America, and Mexico, there is a significant chance that President Trump or a future occupant of the White House will give that option serious consideration.
There may be a tendency to forget that U.S. military coercion of troublesome regimes in the Western hemisphere was once a major item in Washington’s foreign policy toolbox. That approach, so-called gunboat diplomacy, led to numerous military interventions during the first three decades of the twentieth century. That was especially true in Central America and the Caribbean. Washington launched multiple invasions and occupations of countries such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua. Even Mexico, a much larger and stronger country, was not immune to Washington’s imperialism. During Woodrow Wilson’s administration, U.S. forces seized the port city of Veracruz and sent an expeditionary force deep into northern Mexico in an attempt to apprehend Pancho Villa and his armed rebels.
I know that the majority of Dear Leaders advisers would attack Iran tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it…..I hear he will convene his National Security Council soon and there is something they should consider (According to the Modern War Institute)
If President Donald Trump’s most recent tweets about Iran are any indication, a military confrontation with Iran is not off the table. And yet, there is almost certainly little consensus, even within the administration, about the wisdom of such a course of action. Mark Perry’s recent Foreign Policy article about Defense Secretary James Mattis’s efforts to avert war with Iran notes Mattis harbors no illusions regarding Iranian threats, but that he is also keenly aware any military strike would have broad and negative repercussions for the United States. One such repercussion is how an Iranian conflict might lead to regime change, possibly forcing the United States into another occupation in the region. Even the most hawkish US officials are not eager at the prospect of another foreign occupation. Occupations are something the United States has struggled with, most notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, since war rarely goes according to plan, the circumstances and situations war creates demand policymakers evaluate countless “what if” scenarios; including the possibility of a military strike escalating into regime change and a subsequent occupation.
Just what the US needs yet another nightmare scenario….we have had enough of them with Afghanistan and Iraq….so where is the logic in making another one?
I realize that Dear Leader does not believe the old axiom…”Might Does Not Make Right”…….but he continues to thump his chest like a sex crazed primate…..and the nation will suffer.
SUFFER? Now there is the one word that supporters of Our Dear Leader will fixate on a demand to know what I mean by “SUFFER”…..just so there is NO confusion…..by suffer I mean the loss of human life….the loss of taxpayer money that goes unaccounted for……and the loss of oversight by Congress….do you get the picture now?
Since too many of his supporters go to the Closing Thought only then they have missed anything that I may have written earlier…so I feel for their convenience I feel I need to explain everything so they do not look stupid.