Readings

Barnett (2025) – The Trump Doctrine and the Western Hemisphere

Trump’s test of hemispheric re-engineering

• Venezuela is framed as Trump’s test case for reshaping the Western Hemisphere.

• Comparable to Iraq under Bush, but regionally focused: a “splendid little war for the digital age.”

• Goal: topple Maduro → reset the strategic order of the Americas.

The Monroe Doctrine

• Originally (1823):

  • Defensive, not aggressive.

  • A “hemispheric firewall” against European imperial return.

• More symbolic than enforceable at the time.

McKinley and his mercantile patriotism

• Transforms Monroe Doctrine into economic strategy:

  • Protectionism (tariffs) + expansion.

  • Hemisphere becomes industrial base for U.S. growth.

• “Mercantile patriotism” = nationalism through trade + expansion.

• Echo in Trump:

  • Tariffs + economic nationalism → not isolation, but preparation for dominance.

Roosevelt Corollary

• Shift from defense → intervention:

  • U.S. acts as regional “police” to prevent instability.

• Tools:

  • Hard power (Panama Canal)

  • Soft power (diplomacy)

  • Symbolic power (gunboat diplomacy)

• Establishes active management of the hemisphere.

Trump’s main target + 21st-century tools

• Target: China’s growing influence in Latin America.

• Tools:

  • Economic sanctions

  • Tariffs

  • Naval power

  • Strategic investments

• Objective: expel foreign powers, not just deter them.

“Rubio Doctrine”

• Miami as geopolitical hub of the Americas.

• Combines:

  • Anti-communism

  • Diaspora politics

  • Market networks

• Operates through informal influence networks, not institutions.

Vertical spheres of influence vs globalization

• Globalization = horizontal (East-West) networks.

• Trump vision = vertical (North-South) integration:

  • Hemisphere as self-contained system.

• Driven by:

  • Migration pressures

  • Climate change

  • Regional supply chains

Ward (2025) – MAGA Divide over Venezuela

Traditional foreign policy hawks

• Support intervention:

  • Lindsey Graham, Mike Pence.

• View Venezuela as:

  • Threat requiring military action/regime change.

Republicans from South Florida

• Strongly pro-intervention:

  • Influenced by Venezuelan exile community.

• Venezuela is a domestic political issue for them.

America First nationalists

• Oppose intervention:

  • Bannon, Tucker Carlson.

• Argument:

  • Avoid foreign entanglements and endless wars.

Libertarians

• Also anti-intervention:

  • Rand Paul.

• Emphasize:

  • Cost

  • Risk of another regime-change failure.

Anti-immigration advocates

• Oppose intervention for pragmatic reasons:

  • War → migration surge.

• Fear:

  • Undermining U.S. immigration policy.

Big takeaway

• The divide is not traditional left vs right:

  • It’s interventionists vs restrainers within the right.

• Coalitions are fluid and situational.

Conley (2025) – The Arctic Great Game

Basics of the original “Great Game”

• 19th century:

  • Britain vs Russia competing for Central Asia.

• Modern version:

  • U.S., Russia, China competing for Arctic control.

“Unlimited partnership” (Russia–China)

• Cooperation includes:

  • Scientific research

  • Space operations

  • Military/naval patrols

• Strengthens their position vs U.S.

The 1867 purchase

• U.S. bought Alaska from Russia:

  • Secured Arctic presence and resources.

• Seen as foundational to U.S. Arctic strategy.

Northern Sea Route vs Northwest Passage

• Northern Sea Route (Russia):

  • Runs along Russian Arctic coast.

  • Russia claims control.

• Northwest Passage (Canada):

  • Canada claims internal waters.

• U.S. position:

  • Both are international waters.

“Near Arctic state”

• China claims this status:

  • Justifies involvement despite no territory.

• Strategy:

  • Science → investment → influence.

Distant Early Warning Line

• Cold War radar system across:

  • Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland.

• Purpose:

  • Detect Soviet missile threats.

Icebreaker fleet & U.S. Arctic Command (author’s view)

Icebreaker fleet:

• U.S. is far behind:

  • Only 3 icebreakers (2 operational).

• Russia dominates capability.

Arctic Command:

• Problem:

  • Fragmented command structure.

• Solution:

  • Create unified U.S. Arctic Command.

Overall argument

• Arctic is:

  • A strategic, economic, and military frontier.

• U.S. risks losing due to:

  • Underinvestment

  • Weak coordination

  • Strong Russia–China cooperation

Quick Synthesis (Big Picture)

• Barnett: U.S. is pivoting back to hemispheric dominance.

• Ward: Even within MAGA, there’s deep disagreement on how far to go.

• Conley: Meanwhile, a new global competition (Arctic) is emerging where U.S. may be falling behind.