Abstract
On examining US presence in foreign wars during the years 1898 and 1917, can we say that the decisions were based on "idealistic" or "realist" reasons? Or would some other term or category better describe the most important considerations?
On April 25, 1898, following several years of unsuccessful negotiations to mitigate the Cuban crisis and put an end to the equivocation of President William McKinley, the US Congress declared America's official entry into war against Spain, in order to free the Cubans from its domination.
Nineteen years later, on April 4, meeting President Woodrow Wilson's demand, the Congress declared war with Germany, "for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its people" again.1 In reality, in both cases, the US entry into war was motivated by several reasons. Some of them were idealistic in the way that they corresponded to a wish from the US government to adopt a foreign policy which would comply with its internal political philosophy: a wish to impose the American political ideology abroad or, at least, to fight against ideologies which were too different from it.
Some other reasons were realist in that they facilitated the preference of national security and interests over ideology and even ethics sometimes. Finally, constructivist and Marxist theories of international relations might also partly explain the US entry into war in 1898 and 1917.
On observing and weighing up these different reasons in each case, one can legitimately wonder if the US foreign policy has shown a radical evolution between McKinley's and Wilson's mandates or if, on the contrary, these presidents led similar policies despite their opposite political labels (since the former was Republican contrary to the latter, who was a Democrat).
Tags:Monroe Doctrine, US wars on foreign lands, 1898 war, German invasion
