Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.
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." War planners
made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel
zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure,
such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies,
etc. 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). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such
as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's
people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new
democratic government more to their liking.
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 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. Take the
list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside
of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you
will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others
may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves
as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming
many of their countries' internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.
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.
