By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump announced the U.S. had superseded the Monroe Doctrine with the “Donroe Doctrine” following extensive operations against Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. This new doctrine, foreshadowed in the National Security Strategy, aims to assert American dominance in the Western Hemisphere, ensuring stability and discouraging migration to the U.S. The “Donroe Doctrine” prioritizes controlling America’s sphere of influence and supporting conservative figures. Maduro was apprehended during “Operation Absolute Resolve,” a meticulously planned military operation involving over 150 U.S. aircraft and ground forces.
Read the original article here
Trump boasts of a new “Donroe Doctrine” – but what is it? Honestly, the immediate reaction is one of incredulity. “Donroe Doctrine”? It sounds less like a serious foreign policy concept and more like a typo, or perhaps a clumsy attempt at a play on words. It’s the kind of thing that makes you question how anyone could possibly take it seriously, regardless of their political affiliation.
The sheer audacity of renaming a well-established historical doctrine is, in itself, telling. The Monroe Doctrine, articulated in the 1820s, was a foundational principle of American foreign policy, warning European powers against further colonization or interference in the Americas. To “supersede” it, as Trump claims, with a name that mangles the original and slaps his own on it feels like a transparent act of self-aggrandizement. It’s the equivalent of a child scribbling their name over a masterpiece in a museum.
Looking beyond the cringe-worthy name, the underlying message appears to be a repackaging of imperialist ambitions. The comments make it clear that the supposed “Donroe Doctrine” is nothing more than a cover for pursuing America’s self-interest, potentially at the expense of other nations. This isn’t about promoting democracy or fighting for freedom. It’s about securing resources, protecting economic interests, and expanding American influence – the classic hallmarks of 19th-century imperialism.
The parallels to historical actions are quite apparent. The original Monroe Doctrine, despite its noble intentions, was eventually twisted to justify intervention in Latin America, often to protect American business interests. The Roosevelt Corollary, in particular, expanded on the doctrine, asserting the right of the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American countries to stabilize them. It’s a history that’s been rife with exploitation and subjugation. It feels like the “Donroe Doctrine” is simply the next chapter in this ongoing saga.
And the timing? It’s not lost on anyone that this new “doctrine” emerges at a time when global power dynamics are shifting. The suggestion of intervention in a region rich in resources, especially oil and rare earth minerals, can’t be dismissed. It’s easy to see how this could be a rallying cry for those who favor a more aggressive foreign policy, and a warning signal to nations in the region.
The criticism is swift and pointed. It’s called out for its ignorance of history, its lack of understanding of complex geopolitical realities, and its potential for destabilizing the region. This is, after all, an individual whose grasp of history appears tenuous at best. He seems less interested in understanding the nuances of foreign policy and more focused on building a personal brand.
It is suggested that the “Donroe Doctrine” is a distraction. A flashy headline to divert attention from other, possibly more damaging, issues. It fits a pattern of behavior – the tendency to create noise and controversy to control the narrative. The fact that it is a branded slogan that centers one man while pretending to speak for a whole nation’s values speaks volumes.
The overall sentiment is one of disdain and bewilderment. How can anyone take this seriously? It is a manufactured, narcissistic branding of foreign policy. The “Donroe Doctrine” is not a carefully considered strategic initiative; it’s a symptom of a much larger problem – a leader who prioritizes personal gain and self-promotion above all else. This isn’t foreign policy; it’s a circus. It may be the “Dumbass Doctrine”.