Should U.S. Foreign Policy Focus on Latin America More?

Post Reply New Topic

A book I just finished got me thinking about the U.S's broad priorities regarding its foreign policy. Robert D. Kaplan's book "The Revenge of Geography: What the Map tells us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate" [Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2012] looks at how geography may shape great power interactions througout the early 21st century. When we get to the chapter on North American geography, Kaplan raises some interesting points. Quoting a conference he attended in Washington:

Source: The Revenge of Geography, pp. 324-325

The quote refers to the drug cartels, and while the U.S. can greatly reduce their power with changes in drug policy, Kaplan points out that Mexico's geography has led to other instances of strife unrelated to drugs, sometimes spilling onto U.S. territory. You may recall that a Zapatista insurgency took over the state of Chiapas for a few weeks in 1994, and are still active. Mexico's southern neighbors are even greater basketcases.

This had me thinking: is U.S. foreign policy focused on the wrong part of the globe? Should we be more focused on Latin America than we are now? After all, the fate of both Iraq and Afghanistan is turning out like the fate of Vietnam after we left: utterly forgettable and ultimately having no bearing on our daily lives. Mexico, and to a lesser extent other Latin American nations, have a great effect. For those of our friends who live in the Southwestern U.S, internal Mexican politics may directly affect them.

It's just something to consider.

In my opinion, U.S. foreign policy should be scaled back, especially with regard to foreign aid. We have our own troubles here without getting involved in places where the people hate America for its freedoms, its successes, and its generally higher standard of living.

I think they hate us more for our bombing the sh*t out of them and indiscriminately killing their friends and relatives than they do for our socioeconomic success...

Ah, but that's the Middle East. We're talking about Latin America, so it's more about the right wing militias we funneled support to, the regime changes of leftist leaders we were responsible for, and embargoing Cuba.

I'm sure the last thing Latin America wants is for the US to meddle in their affairs more. We need to focus on ourselves, we cannot spend any more blood and treasure on foreign adventurism. It does the opposite of what it's suppose to do, we create MORE enemies and we prolong or worse yet cause suffering. I believe in the foreign policy of Thomas Jefferson, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."

I've sometimes thought it would be best to forget the rest of the world and their problems, scale our military down, and take care of what needs fixed at home. Then I came to my senses. We'd never be able to agree on what needs fixed at home and how to fix it. If the left had its collective way we'd squander all the money we saved on social programs. That said, I vote we remain the world's bully since we at least can see where the money's going and it keeps a bunch of people working.

Where is it going to? What did we accomplish in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Last edited by Jacoby on 05 Jan 2014, 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Legalize weed for recreational use on a national level and it will deliver a crippling blow to the drug cartels economy then send all our troops in collaberation with the non corrupt government officials to quell the corruption within Latin America only then will illegal immigration will go down and the people of Latin America will feel safe and have no need to flee their country for a better standard of living also legalize week in those countries as well will improve their economies as wel and they will excell in becoming first world contries and pay will go up. Just a theory of course.

I see little evidence that the US has anything so coherent as a foreign policy.

While I would prefer our country not to be a "bully", I see where you are coming from. Foreign adventures are often a great way to distract the populace from domestic grievances. In our own time, we see this in the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute. These islands have been disputed for decades, but not at the level they are now. The reason they are disputed with such fervor today is because both nations (particularly China) have domestic problems that have intensified lately. A good fight that stokes nationalism is the only way to keep people together in a slowing economy.

What I'm concerned about is that foreign adventurism can distract us from the threats nearby, and not do the job you envision it doing. During the final years of the Athenian democracy, Athens sent an expeditionary force to conquer and colonize Sicily. That expedition was a disaster for Athens, and divided public opinion back home. More importantly, it allowed Sparta to become a regional superpower, and conquer Athens. While I don't think the U.S. will be invaded for a very long time (it's just too big and very defensible), there may be a threat we do not recognize in our obsession with threats halfway around the world.

Why is that?