In 1958, President Eisenhower sent 10,000 US Marines to Lebanon to protect it from a potential takeover by Gamal Abdel Nasser, whose ambition was to unite all Arab countries under a Pan-Arab vision. This was the first and only time the Eisenhower Doctrine was used. Without American troops and shrewd diplomacy at the time, Lebanon would not exist today as an independent entity.
Despite some notable failures, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, America’s engagement in world affairs and its defense of allies built immense credibility and goodwill among the free nations of the world. After two destructive world wars, it was the United States that constructed a global order, ushering in one of the most peaceful eras in human history. The world looked to America for leadership, and America answered the call. To understand why the US must preserve its role as the leader of the free world, it is useful to remember what pushed it to step up in the first place.
The Arsenal of Democracy
On December 29, 1940, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a radio broadcast from the White House, declaring, “We must be the great arsenal of democracy. For us, this is an emergency as serious as war itself.”
Just a year later, his sense of urgency proved well-founded when Japan launched a massive raid on Pearl Harbor, killing more than 2,400 Americans. This attack taught the US that allowing tyranny to fester abroad would inevitably affect its security. Since the end of World War II, every American president has embraced the title of “leader of the free world.” This was not an empty title. The defense of freedom and democracy has never been merely a slogan—it has been a cornerstone of US policy.
America has fought on many battlegrounds to protect and advance democracy. In 1948, President Truman signed the Marshall Plan into law, disbursing approximately $13 billion (around $160 billion adjusted for inflation) in economic aid to rebuild and stabilize Europe. In 1949, 12 European countries, led by the US, founded NATO to prevent the spread of communism. NATO turned out to be one of the most successful and enduring alliances in history. A Western Europe free from communism, under US leadership, became so attractive that East German authorities were forced to build the infamous Berlin Wall to prevent millions from escaping to the West. As President Reagan once remarked, “We have never had to put up a wall to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us.”
Reagan often used humor to highlight the difficulties of life in the Soviet Union. He once told a joke,
“A Russian man goes to an official agency, pays for a car, and is told that he can pick it up in exactly 10 years.
‘Morning or afternoon?’ the buyer asks.
‘Ten years from now, what difference does it make?’ the clerk replies.
‘Well,’ says the buyer, ‘the plumber is coming in the morning.’”
Under communism, people struggled to obtain nice things such as cars and apartments. Even bread became a luxury due to the inefficiencies created by a centrally planned economy. These struggles were virtually unheard of in Western economies, which thrived under American protection and promotion.
In 1950, US troops led a UN counteroffensive against North Korean forces backed by Communist China, securing South Korean sovereignty and democracy. Today, South Korea stands as one of the world’s most dynamic and successful economies.
America has achieved what no other power in history has managed: uniting peace-loving nations to strengthen and protect the cherished values of freedom and democracy. Without American leadership, these ideals would rest on fragile foundations. Abandoning this role would significantly damage US credibility and empower an increasingly assertive authoritarian axis comprising China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Such a shift would not only undermine global democracy, but also erode America's identity and place among nations in the modern world.
Economic Repercussions for America
It is not only global democracies that would suffer from American disengagement—Americans themselves would face severe consequences. To understand why, we must examine the dominance of the US dollar.
The dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency has made the United States the most prosperous nation on Earth. Approximately 59% of global trade is conducted in US dollars. Because of this high demand for its currency, the US can sell trillions of dollars in debt abroad by issuing Treasury bonds at very low interest rates. This enables the US to spend lavishly on a wide range of domestic policies—a phenomenon known as America’s “exorbitant privilege.”
However, this privilege comes with responsibility. America has a vested interest in maintaining global trade stability, which it achieves by upholding a strong military presence in the Middle East, Europe, Asia and the Indo-Pacific. Simply put, global confidence in the dollar is tied to America’s ability to guarantee free trade.
A strong dollar also grants American consumers high purchasing power, increasing their quality of life. From an economic perspective, this dynamic is a net benefit for the US. However, if America were to withdraw from the world stage, these economic advantages would be jeopardized, undermining the prosperity Americans enjoy as a result of their country’s global hegemony.
In January 1934, Republican Senator William Borah spoke before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Years of peace since the first world war had convinced him that global military spending should be reduced. He advocated for America to excuse itself from intervening in world affairs. Less than a decade after his speech, in 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor forced America into the conflict.
Thus, disengagement will not protect the US—just as it failed to do so in 1941. The current world order, which it created, has made it possible for many countries, especially Lebanon, to preserve their independence and values. If this order is replaced by another, shaped not by America, but by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, freedom and prosperity around the world will be in great peril.
Comments