Strategika

Subscribe to receive Strategika. Subscribe »

Friday, September 6, 2019

Issue 60

The Monroe Doctrine and Current U.S. Foreign Policy
Background Essay
Background Essay

The Monroe Doctrine: Guide To The Future

by Williamson Murrayvia Strategika
Friday, September 6, 2019

The Monroe Doctrine, which purports to warn other states from interfering in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, has supposedly remained a basic principle of American foreign policy since the first half of the nineteenth century. From the point when it was issued, its actual relevance has depended on the willingness to enforce it, or whether there was any real threat. President Monroe issued it during a period when all of the major Spanish colonies in the Western Hemisphere were in the process of gaining their independence from Spain. 

Featured Commentary
Featured Commentary

Principled Realism And The Monroe Doctrine

by Chris Gibson via Strategika
Friday, September 6, 2019

With the publication of the December 2017 version of the National Security Strategy, the Trump administration changed the course of American grand strategy. With it, the U.S. made a conscious choice to leave behind President George W. Bush’s controversial neo-conservative inspired policy of “preemption” and Barack Obama’s convoluted “consequentialism,” embracing instead the more traditional approach of “principled realism,” first articulated by President George Washington. In this new era all previous policies and approaches are under review, including one of our oldest foreign policy statements—the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.

Featured Commentary

E Pluribus Plures

by Bing Westvia Strategika
Friday, September 6, 2019

A doctrine is a set of guiding principles shared widely by an organization or a nation. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 stated that any effort by a European nation to take control of any North or South American country would be viewed as “the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” In 1962, the Doctrine was invoked during the Cuban Missile Crisis. With the support of the Organization of American States (OAS), President Kennedy established a naval quarantine around the island.

E.g., 11 / 18 / 2019
E.g., 11 / 18 / 2019
Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Issue 52

Turkey and the West
Monday, June 25, 2018

Issue 51

Nuclear Proliferation

Background Essay

by Gordon G. Chang Monday, June 25, 2018
article

Featured Commentary

by Thomas Donnelly Monday, June 25, 2018
article
by Thomas Karako Monday, June 25, 2018
article
Thursday, April 26, 2018

Issue 50

Pakistan's Partnership with the United States

Background Essay

by Peter R. Mansoor Thursday, April 26, 2018
article

Featured Commentary

by Ralph Peters Thursday, April 26, 2018
article
by Bing West Thursday, April 26, 2018
article
Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Issue 49

The Value of Economic Sanctions

Background Essay

by Josef Joffe Thursday, March 29, 2018
article

Featured Commentary

by Angelo M. Codevilla Thursday, March 29, 2018
article
by Thomas Donnelly Thursday, March 29, 2018
article

Related Commentary

by Thomas H. Henriksen Tuesday, July 18, 2017
article
by Reuel Marc Gerecht, Mark Dubowitz Sunday, November 10, 2013
article
by Bruce Thornton Tuesday, July 21, 2015
article
by Thomas H. Henriksen Friday, October 30, 1998
article

Pages

Explore Research

Filter By:

Topic

Type

Author

Section

Enter comma-separated IDs of authors
Enter comma-separated IDs of contributors

Support the Hoover Institution

Join the Hoover Institution's community of supporters in advancing ideas defining a free society.

Support Hoover

Featured Commentary

NATO Renewed (Coming Soon To A Theater Of War Near You)

by Ralph Petersvia Strategika
Thursday, January 17, 2019

Clio, the muse of history, has a fabulous sense of irony: As the human pageant unfolds, she delights in confounding our intentions and expectations. Thus, two public enemies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (whose acronym, NATO, sounds like another Greek deity) promise to be the unwitting saviors of the alliance, rescuing it from complacency, lethargy, and diminishing relevance.

Background Essay

European Defense

by Angelo M. Codevillavia Strategika
Thursday, January 17, 2019

Europe was never a full partner in its own defense. The very question—Will Europe ever fully partner with the U.S., or will the European Union and NATO continue to downplay the necessity of military readiness?—is no longer meaningful as posed, because the political energies of Europe’s elites are absorbed as they try to fend off attacks on their legitimacy by broad sectors of their population.

Related Commentary

Europe Is Alert to the Dangers It Faces

by Kori Schakevia Strategika
Thursday, January 17, 2019

I think the question (Will Europe ever fully partner with the U.S.—or will the European Union and NATO continue to downplay the necessity of military readiness?) is lagging the reality of European acknowledgement of their military shortfalls. Europeans are no longer downplaying the necessity of military readiness.

Related Commentary

Even Amidst Change, Europe Still Relies on the U.S. for Defense

by Barry Strauss via Strategika
Thursday, January 17, 2019

Are there circumstances in which the European Union and NATO will partner fully with the U.S.? At the moment, they don’t. In 2017, for example, only a very few European countries contributed more than 2 per cent to defense, in spite of a 2014 promise to do so. Meanwhile, the U.S. contributed more than 4 per cent.

Related Commentary

Europe Lacks the Will to Defend Itself

by Bing Westvia Strategika
Thursday, January 17, 2019

The Hoover Institution at Stanford University posed this question—Will NATO Europe fully partner with the U.S., or continue to downplay military readiness? The brief answer is that the leading economic powers in Europe have moved beyond national defense into a never-never land of post-military globalism. The liminal leap into self-induced delusion assumes that major conflict will never again embroil the European continent. So there isn’t enough money for a credible military force in Europe because there is not the political will. The moral is to the physical as four to one in battle, and Europe lost the spirit to fight long ago.

Related Commentary

The European Alliance That Never Was

by Angelo M. Codevillavia Strategika
Thursday, January 17, 2019

The notion of an Atlantic alliance consisting of Europeans and Americans as full partners was once a useful fiction. Today it is a dysfunctional one, an obstacle to all sides’ understanding of what useful cooperation may yet be possible.

Strategika Issue 55: The Structure of World Power

via Strategika
Friday, November 16, 2018

Strategika Issue 55 is now available online. Strategika is an online journal that analyzes ongoing issues of national security in light of conflicts of the past—the efforts of the Military History Working Group of historians, analysts, and military personnel focusing on military history and contemporary conflict.

Related Commentary

America on Top

by Miles Maochun Yuvia Strategika
Thursday, November 15, 2018

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the lone superpower that, if it’s so willing, can exert preponderant influence over the global, geostrategic, and geopolitical order. In a true sense, a bipolar or multi-polar world order whereby the U.S. is of equal status and influence with another “pole” or “poles” does not really exist.

Related Commentary

Regional Bipolarity, The New Global Model

by Ralph Petersvia Strategika
Thursday, November 15, 2018

The United States’ superpower monopoly endures, but only in the western hemisphere. There is no regional military or economic competitor, and ideological challengers have failed or remain strategically marginal. Elsewhere, the emerging model is regional bipolarity coincident with global economic tri-polarity (United States, China, European Union).

Related Commentary

A Different Path to Global Stability

by Chris Gibson via Strategika
Thursday, November 15, 2018

The global strategic landscape is clearly evolving beyond U.S. hegemony, presenting both challenges and opportunities for our national leaders.

Pages


The Working Group on the Role of Military History in Contemporary Conflict strives to reaffirm the Hoover Institution's dedication to historical research in light of contemporary challenges, and in particular, reinvigorating the national study of military history as an asset to foster and enhance our national security. Read more.

Is there a military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Stay Up To Date!

Be notified when an new issue is available.

Subscriptions »

RSS Feed Subscription

subscribe and listen on iTunes

Strategika is an online journal that analyzes ongoing issues of national security in light of conflicts of the past—the efforts of the Military History Working Group of historians, analysts, and military personnel focusing on military history and contemporary conflict.

Our board of scholars shares no ideological consensus other than a general acknowledgment that human nature is largely unchanging. Consequently, the study of past wars can offer us tragic guidance about present conflicts—a preferable approach to the more popular therapeutic assumption that contemporary efforts to ensure the perfectibility of mankind eventually will lead to eternal peace. New technologies, methodologies, and protocols come and go; the larger tactical and strategic assumptions that guide them remain mostly the same—a fact discernable only through the study of history.

To stay up to date when new issues are released, sign up here to be notified when a new Strategika is available.

Subscriptions »

 

The opinions expressed in Strategika are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Hoover Institution or Stanford University.