by Ned Kowalski
The US is engaged in wars with no end in sight. Unlike the Indians Wars on the North American Continent prior to and after the founding of the American nation, these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be won by “Manifest Destiny”.
Manifest Destiny was the belief widely held by Americans in the 19th century that the United States was destined to expand across the continent. The concept, born out of “a sense of mission to redeem the Old World”, was enabled by “the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven”. The phrase itself meant many different things to many different people. The unity of the definitions ended at “expansion, prearranged by Heaven”. Mid‑19th century Democrats would use it to explain the need for expansion past the Louisiana Territory.
Manifest destiny provided the dogma and tone for the largest acquisition of U.S. territory. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was also used to acquire portions of Oregon from the British Empire. But Manifest Destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, says Merk, and never became a national priority. By 1843 John Quincy Adams, a major supporter, had changed his mind and repudiated Manifest Destiny because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas.
The legacy is a complex one. The belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, as expounded by Abraham Lincoln and later by Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, continues to have an influence on American political ideology
It is one thing to occupy a continent with settlers who outpopulate the indigenous peoples. These Native Americans were placed on reservations. The March of Tears during Andrew Jackson’s presidency demonstrates the cruelty necessary to defeat and neutralize entire indigenous populations who have vastly different cultures and religions.
Is it possible to kill enough Afghanistanis and Pakistanis, Africans, Muslims, Chinese, Russians, etc., to accomplish what the US wants in the world? To eliminate terrorism is to eliminate the weak, and if you believe the Pentagon, everyone outside the US is “weak” . Could the British invade and kill enough Irish in Northern Ireland to eliminate terrorism? By changing their tactics, The British finally eliminated terrorism in Northern Ireland, only to have it re-instituted in London by jihadists. It just never goes away.
With the possibility that banks may continue to fail and the deterioration of the economic situation in the US, contingency plans need to be made to deal with this domestic economic crisis. Global warming, food shortages and rising populations are here already. To virtually ignore these crises while chasing the golden ring of oil in the Middle East, is foolhardy at best. The economic collapse of the US is a real risk. Americans have fallen into the trap of hubris, by believing the world is an extension of home.
Both Democrats and Republicans are pursuing, and have been pursuing, the far-right’s foreign policy for decades. Especially plans for “regional diplomacy”. And these thoughts on regional diplomacy are alarmingly thin, on closer inspection. It has become like fighting needles by burning haystacks.
To launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative, that includes key nations in the region, to help achieve a new political settlement among different peoples, start a civil war, and initiate a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict. But it comes at an enourmous cost to American soft power.
Americans need to pressure their candidates to stop talking in vague general terms, and demand that Washington’s long-practiced foreign policies that have real American people on the front lines, become more realistic.
Those being exploited around the globe for their nations’ resources are not winning Americans any friends. Can they all be either killed or put in reserves?