US military interventions

A detailed checklist and commentary by an American academic here on US military interventionism during the 20^th century. Although written six years ago [a month after 9/11], it’s still worth reading.

The author concludes that the presentation of many of these interventions to the American public has been at odds with the reality:

“First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian ’collateral damage’….The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as ‘accidental’ or ‘unavoidable’.

“Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending ‘freedom’ but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments).

“Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as ‘terrorism’, ‘atrocities against civilians’, or ‘ethnic cleansing’, but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to ‘end’ a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington's double standard maintains that an U.S. ally's action is by definition ‘defensive’, but that an enemy's retaliation is by definition ‘offensive’.

“Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into ‘friends’ and ‘foes’, and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.

“Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.

“Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power..…

“One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that ‘people like us’ could not commit atrocities against civilians.

· German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.

· British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.

· Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.

· Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.

· Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.

· U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.

"Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent. The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes' toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence.”

What a pity that this last piece of advice wasn’t heeded!