How I Feel About a New American Empire

Recent foreign policy decisions and opportunities have called me to deeply examine my beliefs. What should we take over and what should we let go?

If you’ve read Captain K’s Corner for more than a few months, you likely understand my perspective. I stay mostly in my lane and write about election integrity, immediate geopolitical events, and when I’m feeling salty, my lessons learned and experiences within the United States Army. In one of my first Substack pieces, I wrote about how I feel about my generation’s wars without end:

Getting away from endless, fruitless wars was and is a key pillar of the Trump doctrine. Thanks to the steady flow of information available from the Internet, Americans quickly figured out that our prolonged conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan lacked justification and sincere objectives. The Middle East remains a place of turmoil to this day, and the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal was a military catastrophe ranking near the top of the charts for the American armed forces since inception.

Every time something big is going on in the world in which conflict is possible, the “Panicans” rant and rave about how Trump will destroy his presidency if he starts a military occupation or prolonged conflicts with “boots on the ground.” And every time, without fail, there is no such conflict. I am old enough to remember fears of Trump-led “endless wars” in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Ukraine, and many other nations that never materialized. Today, we are talking about military action to seize Greenland, which 25% of bettors (up about 10% since two weeks ago) on Polymarket think will cede at least some territory (whether by agreement or force) to the United States.

By now, it should be clear the President is sincere in how he feels about endless occupations that lead nowhere. That does not mean he won’t ever wield the sword, and when he has done that, the action is swift, severe, and more often than not, of the “shock and awe” variety. Ask Qasem Soleimani’s surviving family, or perhaps Nicolas Maduro, who is rotting in jail in the United States.

The capture of Maduro opened a lot of eyes about U.S. military might. It appears to be stronger than ever, and harnessed by bold leadership, capable of achieving endless geopolitical objectives. The itch is there to see what it is capable of, and Americans are far from the first people confronted with such possibilities. Many nations with such strength available have gone on to become “evil empires” that have violated human ethics and caused mass atrocities; history provides examples of the Roman Empire’s military might, which stretched across the known world for centuries pursuing expansion (and then seeking to pacify the conquered populations), while the home front rotted with affluence and vice.

What is the United States capable of?

Whatever it is, I believe we must examine the situation with defense and purpose in mind.

---

DEFENSE

I first found myself in a state of conflict over the so-called Global War on Terror while serving in it overseas (in Afghanistan). I began reading about topics like “Just War Theory,” which posits wars should only be waged with guiding principles led primarily by war as a means of defense and not offense for the sake of expansionism. I am no pacifist, but watching our soldiers struggle through rules of engagement against a non-uniformed enemy in pursuit of non-existent strategic goals in Afghanistan really made me question why I had been so adamant about getting overseas to “fight terrorism.”

“Fighting terrorism” meant attempting to force a warlord-run Stone Age people to accept Western ideals and customs as they are still content to stone women for learning how to read. The year I was over there (2010 and 2011), the Afghans ran extremely fraudulent elections I detail in my forthcoming book, The American War on Election Corruption.

It is clear to me that “we have to fight them over there or we will fight them over here” is a stupid position. Preventing the spread of Stone Age ideologies to America is a matter of having sensible immigration policy not allowing it to take root in the first place. Our wars in Afghanistan were akin to leaving a tent to kill swarms of mosquitoes while leaving the flap wide open while gone.

Sometimes, we even get pushed to volunteer America’s sons and daughters to defend other countries, which leads to my next point…

---

PURPOSE

Military action, if not taken expressly for immediate defensive purposes, should serve at least the purpose of future defense or security. And when I say “security,” I mean the security of United States. I have been clear where I stand about putting boots on the ground in defense of other nations, like Ukraine, Taiwan, or Israel. In the case of Israel, they are more than capable of providing for their own defense and in fact, many Israel supporters are asking to decouple from U.S. aid - presumably to have more control over military operations. Please note, I’m tired of squabbling with people about Israel and have remained consistent in my belief that the U.S. should tend to its own military affairs, and each nation to their own.

Any military operation, if not fought expressly for an immediate defense of the United States and her people, should serve a legitimate and just purpose for long-term security. Enter Venezuela and Greenland.

---

DONROE DOCTRINE

Military intelligence officers are familiar with the Area of Operations, Area of Influence, and Areas of Interest in an operational plan:

Considering the mission of defense, the Area of Operation is the United States. Our Area of Influence, even though through military might it could technically extend across the globe, is our “backyard,” the Western Hemisphere (hello, Monroe Doctrine). We have many Areas of Interest throughout the world - the Middle East, the South China Sea, Eastern Europe, the Arctic, for starters.