The Monroe Doctrine in the New Era: America's Comprehensive Pivot - Detailed Analysis of the U.S. National Security Strategy (Part Two)

One of the core shifts in the United States' new National Security Strategy lies in **"the Trump Corollary advocating and sustaining the Monroe Doctrine."** This distinctly Trumpian interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine not only clarifies the boundaries of America’s core interests in the Western Hemisphere but also signifies a fundamental adjustment in U.S. foreign strategy—from global expansion to a retrenchment toward the Americas. This shift establishes a strategic framework in which "domestic stability" and "external security" mutually reinforce each other, while also creating differentiated strategic positioning for various regions across the globe.

I. Core Diplomatic Interest Anchor: "The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine"

Four Dimensions of Core Interests in the Western Hemisphere

The strategic document clearly defines that the core interests of the United States in the Western Hemisphere revolve around four key dimensions, directly serving homeland security and regional dominance.

First, ensure regional stability and governance. By promoting effective governance within the region, prevent large-scale migration waves toward the United States triggered by governance failures, thereby safeguarding domestic social stability at its source. Second, combat transnational crime. Demand that governments in the region actively cooperate with the United States to jointly eliminate terrorists, drug cartels, and other transnational criminal organizations, cutting off the chain of transnational threats to U.S. security. Third, resist external infiltration. Firmly prevent hostile forces from infiltrating the Western Hemisphere while strictly guarding against the control of critical regional assets by foreign powers, thereby reinforcing the "barrier of influence" in the Western Hemisphere. Fourth, secure supply chains and strategic access. Fully support the development of key supply chains within the region, ensure the United States' sustained access to vital strategic locations, and solidify the material and geographical foundations of regional dominance.

Strategic Shift: From "Going Global" to "Returning to the Americas"

This strategic shift stands in stark contrast to the historical foreign policy trajectory of the United States. During the eras of Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, the U.S. pursued an expansionist path of "from the Americas to the world," gradually establishing its global influence. In contrast, the "new Monroe Doctrine" of the Trump era explicitly pointed toward **"from the world back to the Americas."** This fundamental strategic contraction places the Western Hemisphere at the absolute forefront of U.S. foreign interests, becoming one of the most distinctive markers of the new national security strategy.

II. Strategic Logic: The Two Sides of the Same Coin—"Internal Stability" and "External Security"

The new U.S. National Security Strategy presents two seemingly contradictory yet deeply intertwined parallel approaches, both serving the nation's overarching security objectives and forming a strategic logic that is **"two sides of the same coin."**

To resist foreign aggression, we must first achieve internal stability: Consolidate the foundation of domestic strength.

Although the strategic document focuses on foreign policy, it begins by dedicating significant space to elaborating on domestic preparations, highlighting the foundational role of "securing internal stability." Its core idea is to prioritize addressing domestic issues, fostering synergy among the American people, culture, and military, and consolidating the nation’s strength to provide solid support for the implementation of its foreign strategy. This inward-oriented approach serves as the intrinsic logical premise for America’s strategic retrenchment.

Internal stability requires external security: purifying the security environment in the Western Hemisphere.

To ensure domestic stability, the Trump administration explicitly emphasized the need to "take strong action" in the Western Hemisphere: on one hand, cracking down on illegal forces such as terrorists, drug cartels, and criminal organizations; on the other hand, resolutely preventing the infiltration and influence of other external forces in the region. In the U.S. strategic perception, domestic stability is closely linked to the security of the Western Hemisphere. Only by fortifying the "security barrier" in the Western Hemisphere can external safeguards be provided for homeland security, forming an inseparable and organic whole.

III. Strategic Continuity and Recent Practices: From Verbal Signals to Concrete Actions

Early Signals: Early Release of Strategic Direction

This strategic shift by the United States did not emerge suddenly; clear signals were released as early as [specific month and year]. At that time, vice-presidential candidates Vance and Hagerty, as well as Trump himself, had already hinted at similar foreign policy inclinations in public. Earlier this year, Trump explicitly expressed impatience with EU and NATO affairs, assigning Vance to publicly criticize EU leadership. Moreover, a series of controversial remarks further confirmed this strategic direction: claiming rights over the Panama Canal, demanding the withdrawal of Chinese-controlled capital from related sectors; asserting sovereignty over Greenland; suggesting Canada should become the 51st state of the U.S.; and coercing Mexico into cooperating on security issues. Together, these statements outline a U.S. strategy focused on "prioritizing the Americas while diminishing global obligations."

Key Focus of Practice: Exerting Pressure in the Western Hemisphere with Venezuela as a Breakthrough Point

Although comprehensive security actions have not yet been taken against all the aforementioned disputed entities, the United States has designated Venezuela as a key strategic target in the Western Hemisphere. Through military deterrence, economic suppression, and other means, it has implemented targeted pressure, and the possibility of further actions in the near future cannot be ruled out. This move directly confirms the United States' determination to advance a new version of the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere. Its core strategic logic lies in applying sustained pressure to force the other party into submission or chaos, reflecting the pressure-driven mindset encapsulated in the phrase, "Cry, cry, and it still counts as time."

IV. Global Differentiation Positioning: Strategic Priority Ranking Across Regions

The new version of the National Security Strategy shows significant differences in its descriptions of various regions around the world, clearly reflecting the prioritization of U.S. foreign interests. The Western Hemisphere holds the most prominent priority, while other regions serve this core focus.

Asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific Region: Targeted Containment-Oriented

The United States' strategic objectives in the region are set as "maintaining freedom and openness, safeguarding the freedom of navigation in key maritime routes, and ensuring the security and reliability of supply chains." The subtext of this statement is very clear, "We all know who is being referred to", with the core aim being to contain the expansion of China's influence. It is noteworthy that the strategic document does not particularly emphasize the importance of countries in regions such as India and Southeast Asia, further highlighting its core orientation of targeted containment. The United States' strategic objectives in the region are set as "maintaining freedom and openness, safeguarding the freedom of navigation in key maritime routes, and ensuring the security and reliability of supply chains." The subtext of this statement is very clear, "We all know who is being referred to", with the core aim being to contain the expansion of China's influence. It is noteworthy that the strategic document does not particularly emphasize the importance of countries in regions such as India and Southeast Asia, further highlighting its core orientation of targeted containment.

Europe: A "Soft Constraint" Orientation Weakening Responsibility

The United States' strategic objective for Europe is defined as "supporting allies, safeguarding European freedom and security, while revitalizing Europe's civilizational confidence and Western identity." However, this formulation exhibits a distinct "vague" characteristic: it is brief in length and does not commit to providing substantial "hard contributions" for European security; it avoids strong rhetoric such as "countering and reversing foreign actions" directed at China. This orientation suggests that the Trump administration adopts an almost "tacit approval" attitude toward the Putin government while expressing extreme dissatisfaction with the current governance of the European Union. The core intent is to push the EU to "stand on its own feet" in addressing security issues. The phrase "revitalizing Western identity" is further interpreted as a message to right-wing forces in Europe, encouraging them to confront the existing democratic governments in Western Europe.

Middle East Region: An Interest-Maintenance Orientation of "Stepping Back Without Letting Go"

The United States' strategic objective in the Middle East is to "prevent hostile forces from dominating the region, control the supply of oil and natural gas as well as key transportation chokepoints, while avoiding being dragged into costly and endless wars." Its core essence is "stepping back without letting go": gradually extricating itself from the quagmire of Middle Eastern conflicts while maintaining its core influence over the region. The key to achieving this goal lies in **"helping Israel and Saudi Arabia normalize relations,"** encouraging more regional countries to recognize Israel, and constructing a Middle Eastern order that aligns with American interests.

Technological Hegemony: The Core Priority That Overrides Other Interests

The strategic document identifies "ensuring U.S. technology and standards lead global development" as a **"critical"** core national interest, prioritizing it above all other interests. Key breakthrough areas include artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing. This positioning underscores the U.S. strategy of transforming technological superiority into strategic advantage, aiming to provide foundational support for its overall foreign policy by dominating global technological discourse.

V. The Transcendent Status of the Western Hemisphere and Its Future Strategic Implications

Judging from the length of the strategic document's descriptions, the section on the Western Hemisphere is **"significantly longer than those on the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East."** This detail directly confirms the "detached" priority status of the Western Hemisphere in the new strategy. Such positioning not only determines the current direction of U.S. strategic resource allocation but also foreshadows potential future trends in strategic evolution.

Analysis suggests that if China's strength continues to grow in the future, the United States may fundamentally alter its language regarding Asia in its annual National Security Strategy documents. The wording could potentially shift to: "We will support our Asian allies in safeguarding freedom and security in Asia, while also rebuilding the civilizational confidence and Eastern identity of America’s allies in the region." This formulation bears a striking resemblance to the current U.S. positioning toward Europe, implying a potential posture of "accepting the status quo" or "strategic disengagement." Notably, within the entire framework of strategic interests, the United States made no mention of the Taiwan issue—not even a hint. This omission itself reflects a strategic focus on the Western Hemisphere and a deliberate downplaying of non-core issues in other regions.

VI. Assessment of the Core Advantages of the United States in Achieving Strategic Objectives

The strategic document clearly enumerates nine world-leading assets and advantages that the United States believes it possesses, serving as foundational support for achieving strategic objectives:

1. A flexible political system capable of timely adjustments in its development direction.
2. The largest and most innovative economic system, capable of generating immense wealth and creating leverage for market access.
3. The world's leading financial system is centered around the global reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar.
4. The state-of-the-art technology industry provides core support for economic development and military advantage.
5. The most powerful and combat-capable military force.
6. Extensive global alliance network;
7. Its uniquely advantageous geographical location, with oceans to the east and west, no formidable adversaries to the north or south, and separation from other major powers by vast seas.
8. Unparalleled soft power and cultural influence.
9. The courage, willpower, patriotism, and strong resilience of the American people.

An objective examination of core strengths.

From a practical perspective, some of the United States' advantages are indeed grounded in reality: the "flexibility" of its political system is reflected in its ability to adjust direction during emergencies; its financial hegemony, centered on the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency, serves as a significant strategic leverage; its geographical advantage of being flanked by two oceans and having no formidable neighbors to the north or south is an objective fact; and under conditions of assured reinforcements and secure supply lines, U.S. soldiers do indeed possess a **"tradition of fighting to the death without retreating,"** with strong individual tactical proficiency.

However, some advantages also come with notable shortcomings: although the global alliance network still exists, signs of instability have begun to emerge. Regarding the combat effectiveness of U.S. infantry, some argue that during World War II, the performance of American infantry could only be described as "second to last," with British infantry being the "worst." Citing the Battle of Singapore as an example, it is pointed out that British and Indian troops were prone to collapse when their flanks were threatened, reflecting the limitations of their combat capabilities.

VII. Domestic Reshaping: The "Investing in the Future" Initiative to Support Strategic Shifts

The new version of the strategy emphasizes the need to reshape national capabilities through a robust domestic agenda, providing intrinsic support for the achievement of strategic objectives. Key measures include:

First, reverse domestic policy orientation by abandoning so-called "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" (DEI) and other anti-competitive policies that undermine institutional effectiveness. Second, prioritize unleashing energy productivity as a strategic focus to strengthen the foundation of economic and energy security. Third, advance economic reindustrialization, rebuild the middle class, and regain control over supply chains and core production capabilities. Fourth, persist in the trade war with China, viewing it as a crucial means to safeguard economic security. Fifth, implement tax cuts and deregulation policies to restore economic freedom to businesses. Sixth, increase investment in emerging technologies and fundamental sciences to ensure prosperity for future generations and the continuity of military superiority.

VIII. The Dilemma of the Military-Industrial Complex and the Rise of the "Drone Salvation Theory"

The development dilemma of high-end military projects.

Currently, the U.S. military-industrial complex is facing numerous challenges in high-end projects, with multiple key initiatives experiencing frequent issues or slow progress: - Fighter jets are plagued by ongoing malfunctions; - The Next-Generation Air Dominance program (often referred to as) is plagued by indecisive planning; - The development of bombers is progressing slowly; - Projects like the Zumwalt-class destroyer have been discontinued; - The Ford-class aircraft carriers are encountering problems with critical equipment such as elevators; - Stealth cruise missiles developed to counter China's Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy have also failed to meet expectations. These difficulties highlight the limitations of the traditional high-end military-industrial development model in the United States.

Emerging Forces: The Rise of Anduril Industries and "Anime-Style Military Industry"

While traditional defense projects face difficulties, emerging players like Anduril Industries have risen to prominence, becoming a new highlight in the U.S. defense industry. Founded by Palmer Luckey, the company focuses on the research, development, and production of low-cost, expendable unmanned aerial systems. Palmer Luckey, known for his love of Japanese anime (otaku culture), often shares composite images with anime characters on social media and even dressed casually during a visit to a Japanese drone company. This style sharply contrasts with the rigorous image typically associated with traditional defense contractors.

While the model of "tech geeks leading military development" is somewhat controversial, it cannot be ignored that emerging companies like Anduril Industries are **"actually building factories, actually laying foundations."** By advancing technological transformation through pragmatic production capacity development, they may exert a disruptive influence on the future of warfare with the advantages of low cost and scalability.

Musk's "Drone Warfare" Prediction and Industry Trends

The founder of Tesla (Elon Musk) has long promoted the concept of "drone warfare," with core ideas that closely align with the developmental thinking of Palmer Luckey: First, cheap drone swarms will destroy expensive manned aircraft (such as -), arguing that high-end manned fighter jets are a waste of national resources and a betrayal of taxpayers. Second, future wars will be dominated by drones, with tanks and manned aircraft gradually becoming obsolete, and the nature of warfare evolving into "drone versus drone" confrontations. Third, the United States should prioritize the development of a large number of long-range drones and hypersonic missiles. Fourth, if adversaries possess greater unit production advantages, mere kill ratios will lose decisive significance, with production capacity and attrition warfare capabilities becoming the core competitive strengths.

The resonance in strategic vision between Musk and Palmer Luckey reflects a new development trend in the U.S. defense industry. Some have humorously remarked, "Musk climbed the mountain of defense, only to find Palmer waiting for him at the top." While this statement carries a humorous tone, it reveals a core trend: the power to define the future of warfare may be shifting from traditional defense giants to tech leaders with disruptive thinking.