John Quincy Adams vs. Woodrow Wilson, Thatcher, and Big Money

 A pair of essays showed up today which are very closely related.  One, at the Daily Caller, is written to mildly dispute some assertions made by Erik Prince about the NeoCons.  The other, a Wauck item, plays on the same theme.  Both miss a big element in the War-and-Conquest game:  money.

It looks like John Quincy Adams would not approve of today's American Adventurism:

...the impulse to nation build — to see the world more along moral lines than the harsh truth that the reality of culture, history  and geography presents — is a temptation America contended with long before the advent of the post-Cold War era.

It’s why when future president John Quincy Adams, then secretary of State, spoke to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1821, he admonished that America should go “not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy” but rather be a “well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all” and “the champion and vindicator only of her own.” Adams knew well that a nation founded on the principles of liberty would face a powerful tug to intervene abroad for moral reasons–to destroy monsters....

 Yes, indeed!

...Woodrow Wilson’s push to create the League of Nations and include it in the Treaty of Versailles is a clear example that became known as the “Wilsonian” approach to foreign policy. Understanding that America, as a nation founded on the principle that government exists to secure rights, rather than simply resting on blood and soil, naturally tilts towards viewing world affairs through this moral lens...

Wilson's feckless crusading at Versailles led to WWII; some would say that it caused that war.  (Noteworthy here:  FDR despised the Brits and their White Man's Burden chatter.) 

But for recent problems with Crusading, we can look at Bill Clinton and his immediate successor, GWBush (the Dumber.)

 ...Bill Clinton kicked the U.S. into the hyper interventionism that was a feature of post-Cold War American foreign policy. Rather than viewing the military as an insurance policy, best used to deter war, the Clinton administration saw the military as just another part of government — and an expensive one at that — one that some tangible value should be derived from....

The utterly horrible Madeline Albright played a major role in war-mongering for Clinton as you recall.  Following the example of these two, Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan--and Obama/Biden are 'doing war' against Russia, at the same time as building up the Three Minutes' Hate for Red China.

Why?

Because the Brits hate Russia and intensely covet Russia's natural resources.  The Empire has had a plan for Russia (its demolition) since the mid-1800's and they simply will not give up on that plan.

....What’s notable to me is that lurking behind the words [of a Thatcher address] is simply another version of the imperial notion of the White Man’s Burden—the notion that We are inherently superior, a more fully human form of life, the carriers of a Manifest Destiny to rule the lower forms of human life. Thatcher clearly divides the world into two forms of human existence. We are rich because we are inherently superior—not because we colonized the world by force of arms. The Russians are poor because they are a lower form of human life. As such, it is up to them to submit to our rule and surrender their resources.

Am I exaggerating, reading too much into Thatcher’s words? In the light of previous history, from the end of the Napoleonic Wars onward, I don’t think so. Thatcher was heir to the imperial British ambition of the Anglo-Zionist empire. The history of the British imperial project, as Jeffery Sachs and many others have pointed out, revolved in great part around the idea of containing Russia, preventing Russia from expanding toward British controlled parts of the world—especially India....

 (I'm not sure how Zionism is involved here; seems to me that when Britain created Israel it was more to have a convenient place to send Jews; which they did.)

No question that US adventurism results from a big dose of "white man's burden."  But Wauck and J Q Adams both missed another very important impulse behind it:  money.  All that oil, all those minerals, all those cheap laborers, all those people who could "try out" US pharmaceuticals.........well........they are certainly convenient, right?

Rome and Greece (and for that matter, Spain and France) did not conquer all those other territories to spread Roman, Greek, Spanish, or French thoughts.  They conquered them to bring home the bacon.  Imposing Western order facilitated that; but The Game has always been about money, not "burden."