Greg Ip

So what are the pros?

First of all, to the extent that increased attention from the United States also extends to increased aid, whether economic, military, security, or otherwise, then it could be a very mutually beneficial relationship for all countries in the Western Hemisphere.

To the extent that it enables the United States to secure important resources, whether it's oil or rare earths,

if not necessarily for itself, to at least keep them out of the hands of adversarial countries, that too is a good thing.

So I could think of a number of ways why there is an underlying positive logic for the United States in the Donro doctrine.

But it's also possible to think of lots of ways that the Donro doctrine could go wrong and not end up being beneficial for the United States.

One of the reasons the Monroe Doctrine and imperialism in general went out of style is that a lot of countries didn't want to be pushed around by great powers.

And they sometimes, you know, had revolutions or rebellions or caused a lot of trouble as a result.

We don't know yet how Venezuela is going to react to being run by the United States.

It might turn out really well or it might really turn out badly.

And it might be very costly in terms of blood and treasure.

We just don't know.

I think that the United States going after Greenland risks a serious rupture with all of Europe, which could be very negative for transatlantic security in general and economic relations in the long run.

I think that you're likely to see much more resistance to that domestically in the United States and from abroad.

Exactly.

The drivers of wealth today are not natural resources.

Countries and economies that depend on natural resources on the whole are not doing that well.

Where is American wealth coming from?

Just look at the stock market in the last year.

It's technology, technology, technology.