Offensive Realism and U.S. Foreign Policy

American foreign policy has always followed a linear thought pattern. Although it may have, at times, seemed discordant or even chaotic, foreign policy has always been geared towards the same goal: global hegemony. The seeming divergences that have appeared under various administrations, that some may seek to explain away on grounds of the political party with which each president is affiliated, are, in fact, nothing more than convenient euphemistic approaches to couch, however haphazardly, policy goals in moralistic terms. That is to say, whether a president is a democrat or republican seems to be of little relevance to what the United States has always been attempting to achieve, the difference is merely superficial—apparent only in the speech, not practices, of different presidents.
In effect, American foreign policy has followed the trajectory predicted by offensive realism. It is impossible for any state to remain satiated by a limited amount of power. A little power acquisition only leads a state to seek more. Hans Morgenthau may have put this best (although he used it for individuals rather than states): the “lust for power.” If one looks at the incipient stage of American foreign policy, it is typified by what is euphemistically referred to as isolationism. However, there was little that was isolationist about American foreign policy. While we avoided any alliances with other countries, we sought out trade with all countries, seeking to capitalize off of others without the usually-attendant political and military costs. At the same time, within the border of what is today the United States, we pursued a policy of Manifest Destiny. Here we see the moralistic language of “American exceptionalism” utilized. So while seeking to make commercial gain around the world, we actively sought to make territorial gains on the home front. Not surprisingly, the military might and advanced technology of the United States, relative to the Native Americans made this an easy conquest, as the U.S. borders spread rather quickly “from sea to shining sea.” Manifest Destiny and Isolationism were policies that were followed by all of the early administrations (it is here hard to label the early presidents as necessarily representing parties as political parties were not “present at the creation.”)
Once the borders were stretched as far as possible on the home front, the United States sought to achieve regional hegemony. This was perhaps best exemplified by the Spanish-American War of 1898. The war started as the result of the destruction of the USS Maine off the coast of Cuba. It was claimed, at the time, that the Maine was blown up by the Spanish. However, there has since been extreme controversy with many claiming that the United States was, in fact, responsible for the detonation of the Maine. Whether or not the Maine was an inside job, it still provided convenient “moral grounds” for the United States to justify war. (If one recalls the rule of proportionality from Just War theory, the destruction of the Maine was hardly grounds for an all out war such as the one that soon followed.) As battle cries of “remember the Maine” were shouted, the United States rushed to war. Again, this war was a sounding victory for the United States that, conveniently, resulted in the acquisition of additional territory: the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. In addition, the Platt Amendment was signed, giving the U.S. police powers over Cuba and, as a later result, the area of Guantanamo Bay on the Cuban Coast. The Roosevelt Corrollary to the Monroe Doctrine followed swiftly on the heels of the war, extending the police powers of the Platt Amendment to the entire western hemisphere (Theodore Roosevelt, of course, being a Republican president). Around the same time, the United States took control of Panama to begin construction of the Panama Canal. Here we see the United States extending the idea of Manifest Destiny throughout the Western Hemisphere, again using moralistic language to cover up the quest for hegemony—this time regional rather than just sub-regional.
The Spanish American War was shortly followed by World War I. Isolationists continued to plague the U.S. Congress, but that did not prevent Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) from making his moralistic appeal for war to the public. Wilson called this war, “the war to end all wars, the war to make the world safe for democracy.” In entering the war, we entered into a formal alliance with France, the UK, and Italy. Following the war, an even more formal, more permanent alliance was created: the League of Nations. This organization was the brainchild of President Wilson, but even he could not get it through the United States Congress. Without the United States’ support, the league would soon prove an utter failure. Already, the United States had made its presence on the world stage integral to proper functioning—again the result of United States economic and military power, although still not on par with that of some of its European allies. The United States entered into the war as part of an alliance in order to capitalize off the war’s outcome, extending U.S. influence and power—“bandwagoning for profit” according to Randall Schweller. In short, the United States was opportunistic in joining the First World War.
The outcome of World War I, specifically the huge burden and blame placed upon the Germans, soon led to the outbreak of another world war. Again the United States clung to the language of isolationism, this time for the first four years of the war. But by 1941, the United States was already on its way to war. Pearl Harbor was not, as some claim, the motivating factor for entry into the war, the U.S. was already heading to war. Pearl Harbor simply provided convenient moral justification, hastening entry into the fray. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was followed by a formal declaration of war by the U.S. on Japan, which was shortly thereafter followed by a German declaration of war on the U.S. Again the United States entered into alliances in order to come out victorious, this time allying with the British and the Soviets. Following the war, the United States, along with its allies, succeeded in establishing a permanent alliance body, the United Nations. Conveniently, the United States and its allies were awarded permanent seats on the Security Council, the organizations most powerful body, and a veto over all of its decisions. With World War II, the United States again used opportunity to its advantage and used the war to propel itself to the zenith of international politics (along with the Soviet Union). It should come as no surprise that the cold war that followed WWII saw the U.S. pitted against the only other state capable of stopping its global expansion. Hence, the doctrine of containment that soon emerged.
History is indeed written by the winners, and the United States is its biggest winner.