Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Middle East Theatre of War
Source: Centre for Research on GlobalisationGeneral Analysis on
US Military Expansion and InterventionShortly after independence from Britain, the United States navy fought the Barbary War (1801-05). And in 1813, Washington seized its first permanent overseas military base – in the South Pacific island of Nukahiva. Two centuries later, the United States has over 700 bases in 130 countries and spends more on its military budget than the rest of the world combined. Washington claims to be fighting terrorism, spreading democracy, promoting free markets, and restraining challenges from unsavory competitors. US military doctrine explicitly calls for “full spectrum dominance” over all possible adversaries, in every class of warfare, for the indefinite future. This doctrine covers the control of the earth’s outer atmosphere and space, where many lethal weapons have recently been deployed. Never in world history has one nation exercised such power over the rest of the globe or extracted such enormous economic advantage. Such hegemonic policies probably cannot be sustained for long, however, as they are extremely expensive and provoke constant political and military challenges.
Also See GPF's Pages on:
US Military Expansion and Intervention
Articles and Documents
2008 | 2007 | 2006 | Archived Articles
US Interventions – 1798-Present (December 2005)
This timeline lists US military and clandestine interventions abroad from 1798. The list does not pretend to be definitive or absolutely complete. It does, however, demonstrate that the US has engaged in military operations worldwide for political and economic reasons for more than two centuries. (Global Policy Forum)
This government document provides statistics on more than 700 bases that the US military maintains in dozens of foreign countries and territories. The report includes details such as locations, acreage, numbers of personnel, and “replacement value” in US dollars for the components of its worldwide infrastructure. For a critical analysis of the 2003 Base Structure Report, see this article by Chalmers Johnson.
According to the Pentagon report "Global Posture Review," the US military will continue to strongly prioritize energy access as well as reinforce its presence in bases worldwide. The report, which emphasizes "vital national security interests," clearly boosts US troop numbers in oil-producing countries. (Foreign Policy in Focus)
Chalmers Johnson suggests that US military bases - over 700 in 130 countries - have replaced colonies as indicators of modern imperial expansion. Are military metaphors such as “footprints” and “lily pads” really euphemisms for US imperialism? (TomDispatch.com)
In 2000 the Pentagon officially announced its ambition to achieve “full spectrum dominance” across air, land, sea, space and information environments. Realization of this policy would enable US forces to “defeat any adversary and control any situation across the full range of military operations.” (Part 1 | Part 2)
This report from United States Space Command defines US policy on weapons in space. Both China and Russia supported a UN ban on space weaponry to prevent a costly arms race. Yet, the US voted against such a draft resolution and withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The report reveals a unilateral strategy within US policy “dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment” and “denying” access to “adversaries.”
An excellent short history of US imperial ambitions and strategies in the Caribbean and the Pacific from 1867 to 1917. Includes maps.
2008
US and Poland Set Missile Deal (August 15, 2008)
The US and Poland signed an agreement that would allow the US to place a missile base on Polish territory. Further, under the pact, US troops can temporarily join the Polish army and assist in military operations. The US signed a similar agreement with the Czech Republic in which radar, designed to track warheads, would be placed on Czech soil. Although the US claims the defense missile shield is to protect itself and its allies against attacks from “rogue” states like Iran and North Korea, evidence suggests Russia is the real target and that the US has ambitions of expansion in eastern Europe. (New York Times)US Military Interests Reign Supreme in Italy (July 31, 2008)
Italy’s highest administrative court – the Council of State – ruled to allow a second US military base in Italy’s city of Vicenza. The Council argued there was no evidence of possible environmental damage, despite no investigation by the Italian government. The No Dal Molin grassroots movement continues to organize protests against the US base and the City Council plans to hold a referendum to let the Vicenza citizens have a say. (After Downing Street)Radar, Star Wars, & the Czech Republic (May 1, 2008)
Z Magazine investigates whether the “free will of the citizens of one country can resist the hegemonic ambitions of empire,” as Czech villagers oppose US plans for a radar base southwest of Prague. Contrary to US media reports that “the Czechs have generally been receptive to the idea,” two-thirds of Czech citizens object to their government giving the US free-rein to build the radar and import military personnel. Villagers living near the proposed site fear the health risks and doubt that the US faces sufficient threat from Iran and Russia to warrant a radar base on European soil.The RAND Corporation: America's University of Imperialism (April 30, 2008)
RAND Corporation made a “peculiar contribution to the modern world” by manufacturing “the Cold War American empire,” argues Chalmers Johnson. The private think tank grew out of the US Air Force, employed Nobel Laureate economists, and invented reconnaissance satellites, missile defense and the internet. RAND made terrible but predictable analytical errors. The Corporation overestimated the Soviet military threat and stoked the Cold War. Johnson fears RAND’s graduate school trains today a new generation of researchers to support militarism and aggression. (TomDispatch)How Come Zimbabwe and Tibet Get All the Attention? (April 17, 2008)
This Guardian article looks at why the US and UK decry human rights abuses in Tibet and Zimbabwe, yet barely pay lip service to election-rigging in the Middle East and “Africa’s worst humanitarian crisis” in Somalia. Double standards explain part, but not all, of the story. The author illustrates how the US and UK governments have had an influential hand in creating the Tibetan and Zimbabwean crises, and seek to cover their tracks.Arms Race in Space (April 1, 2008)
This Foreign Policy In Focus article argues that the US is seeking “space superiority” by advancing the weaponization of space. The US Congress increased funding for counterspace operations and the Pentagon issued documents clarifying how the US should wage war in space. However, China and Russia are also developing their own space assets. The author argues that this space race can lead to disastrous consequences, especially because the US and Russia link space weapons to their nuclear weapons strategy.European Missile Defense: the America-Russia-Iran Knot (March 31, 2008)
A new arms race is afoot between the US, Iran and Russia, argues this openDemocracy article. The US plans to install a radar system on Czech soil to monitor potential Iranian missiles. Russia believes, however, that the US intends to use the system to oversee its arsenal instead. Even if Iran did possess missile stores, the US radars would fail to register long-range ballistics without homing devices. The author claims therefore, the US boasts its military might to rattle Russia and provoke Iran.Resisting the Empire (March 20, 2008)
This article from Foreign Policy in Focus applauds grassroots movements like the global “No Military Bases Network” for challenging the Pentagon’s “imperial arrangement” of 750 military bases. These outposts can launch potential nuclear attacks and impose control over foreign oil. “Host” countries object to the bases due to Marine-led crime and human rights abuses. Aggrieved communities are resisting the US military web through landmark court battles, like the case against the Marines of Okinawa, accused of raping minors.Africom Threatens the Sovereignty, Independence and Stability of the African Continent (January 24, 2008)
In this position paper, the National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) strongly oppose Africom, the US military command in Africa. Rather than “[achieving] a more stable environment in which political and economic growth can take place” The NCBL claim Africom protects US oil interests and allows the US to compete with China for dominance of Africa’s resources. In other words Africom is “likely to become a device for foreign domination.” (Pambazuka)2007
Bush More Emphatic In Backing Musharraf (November 21, 2007)
In response to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s state of emergency declaration, US President George Bush said that Musharraf “hasn’t crossed the line” and “truly is somebody who believes in democracy.” The emergency rule has resulted in mass arrests and the removal of Musharraf’s political opponents from the country. (Washington Post)Pervez Musharraf’s Desperate Gamble (November 5, 2007)
Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf has imposed martial law, targeting the country's lawyers, journalists, judges and human rights activists. The President closed down independent television and radio channels, thus removing important sources of information for the fifty percent illiterate population. Musharraf’s largest supporter in the West, the US government, says it will not withdraw its support since Pakistan is an ally in the war in Afghanistan. (openDemocracy)The United States’ New Backyard (November 2007)
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has focused much of its foreign policy on the Middle East. The region’s geo-strategic importance and large oil resources coupled with the close US relationship with Israel have contributed to this development. President Bush has said “the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.” Le Monde diplomatique illustrates how the neocon doctrine of “constructive instability,” an approach of exploiting local rivalries to promote US interests, plays out everywhere in the region from Iraq to Lebanon.Bush’ World War Three (October 17, 2007)
US President George W. Bush has said that Iran and its nuclear program could cause a “World War Three.” Former Republican leader of the House Newt Gingrich has also used this term, saying that “we’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the Third World War.” This Global Research article warns that this rhetoric could serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy.In Harm’s Way (September 30, 2007)
This New York Times Book Review discusses journalist Robert D. Kaplan's new book “Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts.” Kaplan follows the US military through different deployments around the globe while cheering on the soldiers’ efforts and their love of their country. By supporting the troops and their missions unconditionally, Kaplan comes off as biased and uncritical. He portrays the future of the US ‘empire’ as a global network of small military bases, almost invisible, but very much integrated in the host society.US Imperial Ambitions Thwart Iraqis' Peace Plans (September 19, 2007)
In this AlterNet article, Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar examine the reasons why Iraqi plans for peace are ignored by the mainstream media and the Coalition. Proposals from different Iraqi political parties include disbanding militias, providing for national reconciliation and rebuilding Iraqi government and security forces along non-sectarian lines. Ultimately all of the proposals call for a US withdrawal. However, according to the authors, the US prefers to follow a policy which involves permanent US bases, international control of Iraqi oil and where resistance is viewed as “sectarian violence.”Canada’s Sovereignty in Jeopardy: The Militarization of North America (August 17, 2007)
Under the emblem of US North American Command (NORTHCOM), the US is extending its power and influence in Canada. Although Canada initially tried to oppose the US military build up, by 2006 a majority of the armed forces had quietly merged with NORTHCOM. The US can now deploy troops and build military bases on Canadian land. Due to Canada’s economic dependence on the US and subordination under NORTHCOM, Canada is functioning less as an independent sovereign country and more like a US outpost. (Global Research)Ethiopian Invasion of Somalia Still a Sensitive Issue (August 14, 2007)
With US support, the Ethiopian military invaded Somalia in December 2006. In accordance with US wishes, the invaders replaced the Union of Islamic Courts with the Transitional Federal Government. The US claims that the Union of Islamic Courts had connections with al-Qaeda. But many citizens viewed the Union as a mostly benign source of stability, and some predict that, contrary to US plans, its ouster will lead to “another weak, violent state and a newfound haven for outside terrorists.” (Daily Planet)A Spooky Look at the CIA (August 14, 2007)
In his book “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA,” author Tim Weiner provides a critical account of the US intelligence agency. Since its creation after World War II, the agency has led covert operations supporting US-friendly dictators or eliminating leaders leaning to the left. This book review argues that US leaders failed to consider the “crucial question,” of how “a democracy and a secretive intelligence agency [can] coexist.” (Christian Science Monitor)Peace in Iraq Is Inextricably Linked to a Palestinian Settlement (August 13, 2007)
In this article, The Age revisits a report presented to the US Congress by the Iraq Study Group, calling on the US to acknowledge that key issues in the Middle East – Iraq, Iran, terrorism and the Arab-Israeli conflict are all connected. Despite recommendations that the US cooperate with Iran and Syria to stabilize Iraq and create regional security, the US persists with a policy of isolating Iran. As the debate over US withdrawal continues, the failure of the Bush administration to seek regional cooperation is part of a “depressing pattern to America’s conduct of the war on terrorism.”A New Cold War Over Oil (August 11, 2007)
The US-China showdown over African oil has led the Pentagon to establish an African Command (AFRICOM) branch of the military. US-friendly African armies, for example in Congo and West Africa, have absorbed AFRICOM into their command structures, thereby increasing US military presence on the continent. In addition, because the US cannot outbid China on oil dollar for dollar, it implicated China in the Darfur crisis, therefore undermining Chinese investments in Sudan and promoting UN intervention there. According to Professor Vijay Prashad, such oil-based international intervention in Africa will only “create an Iraq” there. (Frontline)Iraq's Air 'Straits Question' (August 9, 2007)
As the debate rages over a US withdrawal from Iraq, some speculate that the US will compensate for any drawdown of troops on the ground by asserting permanent control of Iraqi skies. Such a strategy will likely provoke a “struggle for dominance [of Iraq’s air space] which will determine the balance of power in the Middle East for decades to come.” (Agence Global)US Escalates ME Arms Race (July 31, 2007)
As US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice continues her tour of the Middle East, Washington plans to give generous “military packages” to its allies in the region, primarily Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Although Rice claims that the Bush administration has designed this aid to create political balance in the Persian Gulf, this International Security Network article argues that Washington wants to “bolster the US arms industry” and “create a de facto Sunni Arab front against Iran.”Gerson's Crusade Against "Low-Hanging Fruit" (July 25, 2007)
This CounterPunch article argues that many neoconservatives in the US government have concluded that they will not be able to achieve regime change in Iran, and so they have suspended plans for intervention. However, some neocons, such as former Bush speech writer Michael Gerson, have turned their gaze on Syria instead, which they consider a “low-hanging fruit” – a state in which they can interfere more easily. Gerson claims that Syria fails to stop terrorists from crossing into Iraq. But this author disagrees and adds that not only does Gerson overlook “the complexity of the Arab world,” he also previously tried to frighten US citizens into supporting the Iraq war.A Change of US Plan for Pakistan (July 25, 2007)
Recently, the US has strongly supported Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, offering both development and military financing. And Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher “categorically ruled out the need for any direct US military involvement.” Washington’s backing, contingent on Musharraf’s cooperation in the US “fight against terrorism,” only increased Musharraf’s unpopularity in Pakistan. As Musharraf’s reputation at home deteriorates and his counter-terrorism strategies fail, US officials have reversed their standpoint and allude to a possible military intervention in Pakistan. (Asia Times)Bush and Poland's Kaczynski Defend Antimissile Plan (July 17, 2007)
Close allies, Polish President Lech Kaczynski and US President George Bush, reaffirmed their plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. They claim that the missiles, “a symbol of [their] desire to work for peace and security,” will counter potential weapons of mass destruction in North Korea and Iran. Russian President Vladimir Putin has argued that Iran does not pose a substantial threat and considers the US plans aggressive. Putin proposed that the US collaborate with Russia on the missiles and relocate them to an Azerbaijan base, but the White House refused. (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty)Parasitic Imperialism (July 14, 2007)
This Global Research article argues that “U.S. military expansions and aggressions” not only harm the regions in which the US intervenes, but they also hurt US citizens and economic interests. In order to feed its vast military budget, Washington reduces public spending and consequently widens the wealth gap. Moreover, US militarism provokes international dissent and hostility, which make the world less willing to buy US goods. The author also claims that US officials restrict democracy in the name of “national security,” hiding information from the public and sometimes fabricating or exaggerating enemies to justify war."Accidents" of War (July 9, 2007)
“Air power -- given the civilian casualties that invariably follow in its wake -- is intensely counterproductive in a guerrilla war,” argues this Tom Dispatch article. The author claims that the US military has always favored airstrikes as a principal tactic and frequently uses them in Iraq and Afghanistan because they appear more distant and less barbaric than “the atrocity of the car bomb” or “the beheading.” He argues that Washington will likely increase airstrikes in the future, despite the civilian casualties they incur, which devastate Afghanis and Iraqis and further provoke suicide attacks and Improvised Explosive Devices.Review Article: The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases (July 1, 2007)
The US operates military bases in 63 countries and deploys 255,065 military personnel in 156 countries. This Global Research article provides maps and statistics about US bases and argues that Washington uses its global “War on Terror” to justify its interference in countless countries where it has usurped natural resources and “established its control” over governments. International progressive groups and antiwar activists protest US military intervention, but neither they, nor the exorbitant costs of military operations, have succeeded in deterring the US from expanding its “worldwide network” of bases.Pakistanis Baffled by US Support for Their Military Regime (June 27, 2007)
Washington considers Pakistan an important ally in its “War on Terrorism,” but the ties between the two administrations generate resentment of the US among Pakistanis. Former Pakistani Ambassador to the US Syeda Abida Hussain referred to Musharraf as “drunk on American power,” saying that he “steps on all possible Pakistani toes.” One organizer in the movement against Musharraf claims that the US imposed Musharraf’s leadership on Pakistanis, and now they have little choice but to use violence against him. (McClatchy Newspapers)Permanent Bases the World Over: Behold the American Empire (June 14, 2007)
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, mainstream media outlets reported very little on the multi-billion dollar construction of US military bases and the massive embassy in Baghdad, essentially ignoring evidence of a permanent US presence in the country. But recently, the media have begun to portray this long-term plan – the “Korea model” – as “breaking news.” Describing US military interventions in other countries as “the American way of Empire,” this TomDispatch article, however, argues that the Bush administration has long held such imperial ambitions.Czech Fears Over Missile Defence Radar (June 6, 2007)
As part of its new anti-ballistic missile system in Eastern Europe, Washington will set up a radar station in the Czech village of Stitov. In this BBC piece, the mayor of Stitov voices concerns that the radar will have damaging effects on residents’ health and that it will be a target for attacks. Many Europeans suspect that the US plan does not aim to protect Europe as the Bush administration claims. The mayor states, “We feel the US doesn't care if there is a conflict in our country as long as it's not in theirs.”The New Pacific Wall (May 30, 2007)
This Foreign Policy In Focus article looks at US and Australian efforts to increase their influence in the Pacific region. Australia’s conservative prime minister has agreed to let the Bush administration establish two bases on Australia’s west coast to provide intelligence to the US military in Asia and the Middle East. But Australia’s strong trade relationship with China complicates the US-Australia alliance. Moreover, the new US bases will likely diminish Australia’s chance of separating itself from future US military endeavors.Darfur: Forget Genocide, There's Oil (May 25, 2007)
This Asia Times Online piece describes Darfur as the battleground for the petroleum geopolitical interplay between the US and China. The US has criticized China’s financial and other initiatives to secure raw materials in Sub-Saharan Africa, although securing oil has long been at the heart of Washington’s own foreign policy. The article surmises that the US eagerness to label the Darfur crisis as “genocide” is a move to open up the possibility of NATO “regime change” intervention. Further, the writer accuses the US of fueling the conflict in the region by training the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army and pouring arms into the region.And You Thought the Cold War Was Gone for Good? (May 11, 2007)
The Bush administration claims that it set up anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic to fend off potential attacks from “rogue states.” This Foreign Policy In Focus article argues that the administration’s justification is covering up the US attempt to counteract Russia and China’s nuclear programs. The author reports that leaders in Moscow are highly suspicious, and the EU is divided on the issue. The article argues that the US missile defense system’s probable expansion into other regions increases the legitimacy of Russia and China's concerns.Putin Likens US Foreign Policy to That of Third Reich (May 9, 2007)
This International Herald Tribune article reports on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s increasingly vocal criticism of US foreign policy. The Russian government has frequently condemned US attempts to “dominate world affairs” through the expansion of NATO and establishing a missile defense shield in Europe. The author argues that the extent of Russian discontent is demonstrated in Putin’s comparison of US policies under the Bush administration to those of Nazi Germany.Curbing the Global Arms Bazaar (April 25, 2007)
This Asia Times article reports on the renewed push to adopt the UN Arms Trade Treaty, which is set to expire at the end of April. The author argues that the US and a coalition of developing nations led by China are set to oppose any attempt at adopting the treaty. Nearly half of all weapons sold to developing countries come from the US and Washington justifies the sales as part of its “war on terrorism.” Humanitarian organizations have criticized the US position claiming that “the arms being sold continue to fuel conflicts and tensions in unstable areas.”Should More US Troops Be Kept in Europe? (April 24, 2007)
Army General Bantz Craddock – the new head of the US European Command – is rethinking a 2002 US Department of Defense proposal to reduce the number of troops stationed in Western Europe, reports this Christian Science Monitor piece. Craddock claims that most of the US troops stationed in Europe are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, which makes traditional training operations difficult to conduct. However, the author argues that Washington seeks to maintain US troops in Europe in order to continue sending a “forceful message to allies and potential foes alike.”Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda (April 24, 2007)
This World Public Opinion poll conducted in four predominantly Muslim countries finds that the majority of people polled want US forces to leave the Middle East. Additionally, a large majority of respondents believe undermining Islam and spreading Christianity is a key goal of US foreign policy in the region.Global Warming Called Security Threat (April 16, 2007)
This report by the Center for Naval Analyses – a group financed by the US government – finds that global climate change is a threat to US national security and should be incorporated into the country’s security strategies. The report lists some of the potential effects of climate change – such as rising border tensions and increased conflicts over food and water – which could lead to “direct US military involvement.” The authors conclude that the US “should commit to a stronger international role to help stabilize climate change.”Blame Game Over Somali Conflict (April 13, 2007)
At a regional meeting in Nairobi, Ethiopian officials blame Eritrea for undermining Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government and accuse Eritrea of being “actively involved in terrorism” in the region. Eritrea asserts that the Ethiopian invasion has not brought peace, stability or democracy to Somalia. Many feel that the fighting in the country reflects a proxy war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. 1,400 Ugandan peacekeeping troops were deployed in March in Somalia, and Burundi has agreed to contribute to the mission of the African Union. The AU mission deplores the fact that logistical and financial support promised to the peacekeepers has not arrived. (News24)Russia Threatening New Cold War Over Missile Defence (April 11, 2007)
A proposed US missile defense shield, parts of which would be based in Poland and the Czech Republic, is causing much discontent in Moscow, reports this Guardian article. Top Russian government officials have stated that Russia views the proposed defense system as hostile and that if it is completed it has the potential to spark a second arms race.Bush's Arc of Instability (April 10, 2007)
Bush administration attempts to bring down “rogue” regimes have failed, argues this TomDispatch article. After launching the “war on terrorism” US officials decided to target governments that makeup a so-called “arc of instability” – an area that ranges from North Africa through Central Asia. The author claims that Washington sought uninterrupted access to these countries’ energy resources, but instead of “stabilizing” nations within this arc, US actions have made the region more volatile.US-Made Mess in Somalia (April 9, 2007)
Ivan Eland, Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute writes that the unfounded US belief that Somalia would become a haven for terrorists, led it to support unpopular warlords in the country. This gave rise to Somali support for the radical Islamist movement where there was none before. Eland sees the same pattern of US counter-productive intervention in Afghanistan in the 80s and in Iraq, and warns that the unpopularity and weakness of the US-backed Transitional Federal Government may lead to resurgence of the Islamists in the future.US Agents Interrogating Terror Suspects Held In Ethiopian Prisons (April 4, 2007)
US intelligence agencies have been covertly interrogating terrorism suspects detained in Ethiopia, reports the Associated Press. Human rights organizations allege that the detainees were illegally transferred to Addis Ababa from numerous East African countries and are being denied access to the judicial process.Saudi King Slams ‘Illegitimate Occupation’ of Iraq (March 28, 2007)
In a speech at the annual summit of the Arab League, the Saudi King Abdullah, a close US ally, criticized the Iraq War and called it for the first time “an illegitimate foreign occupation.” Further, he criticized the US interference in Arab affairs and said that Arab nations should be able to decide the future of the region. Arab foreign ministers also supported an amendment of the Iraqi constitution, which would give Sunnis more power and bring about national reconciliation. (Agence France Presse)Nuclear Warhead Plan Draws Opposition (March 4, 2007)
This Washington Post article reports on the announcement by the US National Nuclear Security Agency that it plans to create a new arsenal of nuclear warheads. Many US Congress members oppose the plan – especially given US resistance to the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran – and will press the Bush administration to explain why a new type of warhead is needed.Outpost of Empire (March 2007)
The US has up to 1000 military bases in more than 130 countries around the world. These bases project US military power globally, but they also have a record of causing harm to the civilian population. US military personnel murdered a woman in Korea in 1992 and gang raped a 12 year old girl in Okinawa in 1995. Hundreds of other crimes have been committed on Okinawa, the largest US base in the world, but the perpetrators are exempt from national jurisdiction. (Red Pepper)Introduction to "Selling US Wars" (March 2007)
This excerpt from the book “Selling US Wars” by Tariq Ali analyzes the theories and mechanisms employed by the US to “ensure indirect domination” worldwide. One of the justifications the US gives for the extension of its sphere of influence is the “global war on terror,” which the author states is an unacceptable form of “political violence terror.” Ali also asserts that Washington’s selectivity in enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is another tactic in its pursuit of regional and global ambitions. Moreover, the author criticizes the use of “humanitarian intervention” and “democratization” as reasons for military invasions. (Transnational Institute)Diplomacy and Empire (Part I) (February 27, 2007)
The decision by the Bush administration to “rule the world by force of arms,” following the September 11, 2001 attacks, put the US at odds with many countries including some of its traditional allies, argues this Globalist article. The author discusses the importance of diplomacy and faults US President George W. Bush’s decision to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq as “irresponsible” because diplomatic channels were not fully utilized.US Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran (February 26, 2007)
This Telegraph article claims that the Central Intelligence Agency is covertly funding opposition militias in Iran to increase pressure on Tehran to abandon its nuclear program. The author argues that this policy has many risks as these violent militias – one of which the US State Department lists as a terrorist organization – share “little common cause” with Washington and ultimately might do more to destabilize the region then help it.US Gets Bigger Ears in the Sky (February 22, 2007)
This Asia Times article reports on the decision by the Australian government to allow Washington to build a military communications base in the country to relay information from spy satellites to US forces in the region. Additionally, the US will incorporate the base into a preexisting global network that intercepts international communications for US and UK intelligence agencies to analyze for potential threats.Moscow Perplexes US over Missile Defense in Europe (February 21, 2007)
The Russian government has demonstrated notable displeasure over decisions by Poland and the Czech Republic to allow the US to install components of its missile defense system within their borders. Washington argues that Eastern European bases are essential to adequately respond to any long-range missiles fired from Iran. However, Moscow views the close proximity of the missile interceptors as a threat and top Russian officials warn it could “spark a new arms race.” (International Herald Tribune)Hunt for al-Qaeda Overshadows Repression in Ethiopia, Some Fear (February 19, 2007)
This McClatchy piece reports on the Bush administration’s decision to ignore the Ethiopian government’s repressive tactics because of its desire for a regional ally to help eliminate the alleged al-Qaeda presence in Somalia. Critics argue that the US will not pressure Ethiopia’s government to discontinue its human rights abuses as long as the country maintains its counter-terrorism efforts.Skepticism Over US Africa Command (February 19, 2007)
This International Relations and Security Network piece highlights the skepticism facing US authorities over the proposal to set up a new military command center for Africa. Many critics argue that the motivation is the continent’s vast oil resources. They say that the Bush administration wants to ensure it has unfettered access to Africa’s oil and therefore it needs to be able to respond promptly to any crisis that might disrupt the flow.Thaksin's Loss, US's Gain (February 8, 2007)
This Asia Times article argues that the military coup which overthrew Thailand’s former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra benefits US regional interests. The author claims that the US viewed Thaksin as a liability because of the possibility that he would move Thailand into China’s “regional orbit” and away from US influence. Although Washington condemned the coup and took the obligatory step of cutting off military aid to the country, it has continued to work with and tacitly support the coup leader by continuing to provide non-military forms of financial assistance.African Democracies for Sale (February 7, 2007)
This ZNet article argues that a major threat to democracy in African countries comes from US-funded organizations such as the International Republican Institute and the US Agency for International Development. These organizations operate in at least 40 African countries, aiming in part to “promote” democracy by funding opposition groups to “overthrow” select governments. The author contends that foreign financing sets the political agenda for opposition parties while marginalizing the real needs of the people.How PR Ploys Fill the Pentagon's Recruiting Quotas (February 1, 2007)
This article from the Center for Media and Democracy details the public relations campaign the US Army undertook in the months preceding its 225th birthday on June 14, 2000 in an attempt to boost recruitment. The author argues that the US media played a major role in promoting the army during its 2000 campaign and speculates that with US President George W. Bush’s call to increase the size of the US armed forces by 92,000 over the next 5 years the army will again carry out a massive public relations campaign to enhance its image.Somalia (February 2007)
This article from Le Monde diplomatique argues that US involvement in Somalia now represents a third front in the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” The author claims that one of the reasons behind US President George W. Bush’s decision to encourage Ethiopia to send forces into Mogadishu was that the former Somali government – the Union of Islamic Courts – was allegedly receiving funds from Iran.The Price of Hypocrisy (January 25, 2007)
This Asia Times article argues that the Bush administration’s foreign policy is hypocritical, especially as propagated under US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The author cites a trip by Rice to Egypt – a nation with a notoriously poor human rights record – during which the country’s repressive tactics were glossed over because it is a key ally in the US quest for “hegemony” in the region.Oil, Not Terrorists, the Reason for US Attack on Somalia (January 22, 2007)
This Daily Nation article argues that US air strikes in Somalia – following the ouster of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) government – were motivated by oil interests. Washington maintains that the strikes were aimed at members of al-Qaeda, however, the author claims that the Bush administration – fully aware of the existence of oil in Somalia – wants to make sure that the UIC does not regain control and deny US corporations access to the lucrative oil reserves.CIA Gets the Go-Ahead to Take on Hezbollah (January 10, 2007)
This article from the Telegraph reports that US President George W. Bush has authorized the US Central Intelligence Agency to covertly counter the political organization Hezbollah in Lebanon by supporting the party aligned with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. The author argues that the Bush administration has decided to engage the CIA to help combat the group as part of Washington’s escalating dispute with Iran – a primary sponsor of Hezbollah activities.Pentagon to Train a Sharper Eye on Africa (January 5, 2007)
The US armed forces are considering a proposal to create an Africa Command to deal with the issues it perceives are threatening US interests on the continent, says this Christian Science Monitor article. Historically the US has divided responsibility for Africa among its other regional command centers such as the European Command. The author argues that oil influences this decision, as US demand for Africa’s oil is projected to rise 15 percent by 2010.Somalia: New Hotbed of Anti-Americanism (January 3, 2007)
The US-backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia has led to an increase of “anti-American” sentiment in the region, argues this Global Research article. The author claims that many Somalis – especially supporters of the United Islamic Courts (UIC) which controlled Mogadishu prior to the invasion – believe Ethiopia is acting at the behest of Washington. The article concludes that the Bush administration believed that toppling the UIC was essential to its “war on terrorism” because the Islamic government threatened US regional interests.2006
Militarism and US Trade Policy (December 15, 2006)
This article from Foreign Policy In Focus argues that security and military considerations increasingly dictate US economic policies. The Bush administration in 2002 released its “National Security Strategy for the United States” which declares free trade a national security interest. The author concludes that activists promoting economic and environmental justice must develop a “common agenda” in order to challenge the new world order dominated by US policies that link economics with military interventions.Pinochet’s Death Spares Bush Family (December 12, 2006)
This Consortium News piece analyzes previous US administrations’ attempts to “cover up” the crimes of Chile’s former ruler Augusto Pinochet, who died in December 2006 without ever standing trial. In particular, the author focuses on one-time CIA director and former US President George H.W. Bush’s constant support for Pinochet, despite the brutal tactics the former dictator used to silence his critics. The article highlights the problem of high-ranking officials protecting their “reputations” at the expense of truth and justice.The New Washington Consensus: Blame the Victims in Iraq (December 8, 2006)
This Other News article argues that a new “Washington Consensus” has emerged among US lawmakers following the overwhelming rejection of the US-led war in Iraq by voters during the November 2006 US elections. The new consensus blames Iraqis and not US forces for the massive death and destruction in Iraq and will ultimately help lawmakers justify keeping US troops in the country. The author concludes that, although the Democratic party will control the US Congress starting in January 2007, little chance exists that the US troops will be withdrawn from Iraq in the near future as its “imperial agenda” in the Middle East is not yet completed.Military Spending in the New Democratic Congress (December 4, 2006)
This report published by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation details the likely increases in military spending under the Democratic-controlled US Congress in 2007. The author states that there has been bi-partisan support for increases in the Pentagon’s budget since the September 11, 2001 attacks. And during the 2006 US midterm election, Democrats signaled that they would continue to back such increases and intend to raise the Pentagon’s 2007 budget by US$75 billion. The report concludes that spending billions of dollars on unnecessary military outlays only increases the US budget deficit and takes the focus away from the “true security threats” the US faces.The New Middle East (November/December 2006)
This article in Foreign Affairs argues that the era of US dominance in the Middle East has ended and to “master” the new era “Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might.” Following the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 the US enjoyed unprecedented access to countries in the Middle East. But after its invasion of Iraq in 2003 Washington’s influence began to diminish as many people in the region rejected US hegemony. The author concludes that the new era, marked by the growing influence of external actors such as China and regional actors such as Iran, will further limit US power in the region.The End of the Colombian Blood Letting Could Begin in Washington (November 20, 2006)
In November 2006 the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples Army (FARC-EP) issued a letter to “leftist” US academics and actors asking them to persuade the US government to support a prisoner exchange program between the guerillas and the Colombian government. In response to the letter, the author of this Information Clearing House article discusses how Washington, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, pressured Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to suspend negotiations and brand FARC-EP a terrorist organization. The author concludes that measures such as prisoner exchange are essential to begin the peace process in Colombia; however such actions remain impossible as long as the US continues to support counterinsurgency efforts conducted by the Colombian government.Dismay Grows Over US Torture School (November 15, 2006)
The US Army’s School of the Americas (SOA), renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001, trains Latin American soldiers. The SOA has come under constant domestic and foreign criticism for promoting tactics such as coercive interrogation and torture techniques. This article in The Nation argues that many of the leftist governments in Latin America have stopped sending soldiers to the SOA because of their opposition to US interventions, leading to a decline in the SOA influence. Furthermore, massive demonstrations in November 2006 against SOA in both the US and Latin America could potentially push the Democratic US Congress to cut funding to the school, ultimately resulting in a decline of US military influence throughout the region.Bush's Failed Liberation Theology (November 14, 2006)
Military interventions do not “achieve empowering ends” for people living under oppressive regimes, argues this TomPaine article. Following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States claimed to have “liberated” the people and increased women’s rights, which were largely repressed under the previous authoritarian regimes. However, women have not seen these newfound “freedoms” materialize and remain deprived of economic opportunities and education. The author concludes that a US military intervention in Iran would reverse the gains women have made in recent years, such as winning seats in Parliament, and instead provide Tehran with a reason to suppress reform as a way to unite the country against the “enemy.”US Is Top Purveyor on Weapons Sales List (November 13, 2006)
This Boston Globe article discusses an October 2006 Congressional Research Service report, which ranked the US as the top supplier of arms to the developing world. The report states that the US has supplied high-tech arms to 18 of the 25 countries in the world with ongoing conflicts and to a large number of nations known to violate human rights. The article concludes that US arms sales to conflict-ridden areas only perpetuate violence and hinder US security interests in the long term. However, the US government appears willing to forgo these risks for the economic benefits accompanying these transactions.Bush Replaces Rumsfeld with... Another Rumsfeld (November 8, 2006)
Following the announcement that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would resign, President George W. Bush nominated the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency Robert Gates to the position. US politicians as well as high-ranking officials in the US armed forces have strongly criticized Rumsfeld for his policies in Iraq. However, this AlterNet article argues that Gates shares many of Rumsfeld’s characteristics and the same “hawkish” ideology. Therefore, concludes the author, if the US Senate confirms Gates’ appointment, US military activities overseas will remain more or less unchanged.Kyrgyzstan Caught in US-Russia Squeeze (November 7, 2006)
This Asia Times article argues that US interference in Kyrgyzstan’s affairs will encounter stiff opposition internally and externally from Russia. The current Kyrgyz regime, in place since the US-backed Tulip revolution in early 2005, has courted both Russia and China while shunning the US. This hostility has resulted in the US providing greater assistance to opposition groups in Kyrgyzstan which, have staged repeated demonstrations attempting to bring the regime down. This article concludes that US-supported attempts at regime change will ultimately fail because they lack the support of the Kyrgyz people and the other major power in the region, Russia, does not want to lose its ally so it will continue to provide support to Kyrgyzstan.Targeting Nicaraguans’ Stomachs: The US’s 11th-Hour Elections Meddling (October 31, 2006)
Ahead of the November presidential elections in Nicaragua, current and former US government officials attempt to ensure that Nicaraguans do not make the “wrong choice” at the polls. Conservative US politicians strongly oppose the leftist Sandinista party and its leader and former Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and have threatened to cut off financial support to the country if the people elect him president. The author concludes that outside “intervention” in domestic politics is profoundly undemocratic and the US should let the Nicaraguans decide their own fate. (CommonDreams)Dissent Grows Over US Silent Treatment for 'Axis of Evil' (October 27, 2006)
Foreign diplomats and US politicians strongly criticize the Bush administration’s “no talk” strategy when dealing with the countries it deems part of the “axis of evil,” including, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Thus far US refusal to engage with these countries has proven unsuccessful, as demonstrated by North Korea’s October 2006 nuclear test. This New York Times article concludes that foreign disapproval will continue until the US develops a more interactive policy for dealing with such countries.Is Iraq Another Vietnam? It Is Already Lost (October 22, 2006)
This CommonDreams article argues that the US-led war in Iraq shares many similarities with US involvement in Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s. The author draws parallels between the failure of US officials to recognize that the populations of these countries would resist foreign occupation, as well as the inability of the administrations in power to admit defeat. However, the article concludes that the situation in Iraq will prove worse for the US than Vietnam, because immoral US actions end up “increasing enemies and driving away allies,” which ultimately decrease the influence and prestige of the superpower.Space: America's New War Zone (October 19, 2006)
The Bush administration has issued a directive that “defends US interests” in outer space. This policy gives the government the right to deny its “adversaries” access to space if such access threatens US national security interests or in some way hinders US operations in space. In October 2005, the US blocked a UN attempt to ban the “weaponization” of space, demonstrating that the US may attempt to deploy weapons in space according to this Independent article.Nuclear Umbrella? The Peril of Missile Defense (October 12, 2006)
The nuclear situation in North Korea and Iran will likely lead to renewed calls by the Bush administration to continue development of the US missile defense shield, argues this Information Clearing House article. The expansion of the shield, designed to intercept missiles, not only violates the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, but also diminishes the credibility of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. The article concludes that Washington should spend its time and resources on creating a more effective and comprehensive international treaty than on developing a shield, which ultimately will do little to protect individuals.US Neo-Cons Call For Japanese Nukes, Regime Change (October 11, 2006)
North Korea’s announcement that it tested a nuclear device has led prominent US neo-conservatives to call on the Bush administration to end US engagement with rogue regimes and “get tough,” in effect, implement regime change. In addition, they call for Japan to build up a nuclear arsenal and for the overall cessation of humanitarian aid to the North Koreans. This Inter Press Service article argues that the “realists” in the State Department, who generally prefer diplomacy over intervention, will not silence the neo-conservative lobby which has a strong influence on the policies of the Bush administration, particularly through Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.The March to War (October 1, 2006)
This Global Research report details the deployment of US naval ships to the Persian Gulf, arguing that Washington is preparing for attacks on Iran. Additionally, the author points out that the naval buildup in the Eastern Mediterranean under the auspices of NATO and the US support of Israel against Lebanon signal US attempts to expand the war in Iraq to encompass a large swath of the Middle East. The article concludes that the US aims to take down “hostile” regimes with these strategies and install pro-Western governments to ensure an uninterrupted flow of Middle Eastern oil.US: World Empire of Chaos (October 2006)
This article from Le Monde diplomatique discusses why the Bush administration’s policy in the Middle East was doomed from its inception. The author argues that in the increasingly globalized world the nature of warfare has changed to include transnational actors. The Bush administration failing to realize the differences between national resistance fighters, such as those in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, and the global terrorist network, al-Qaeda, has attempted to combat them using the same methods. As a result of this ignorance the article concludes that the US has no viable option for creating peace in the Middle East and US policies have only increased the strength and number of US “enemies.”Bush at the UN: Annotated (September 20, 2006)
This Foreign Policy in Focus article dissects US President George Bush’s speech to the 61st session of the UN General Assembly. The article argues that nearly all of Bush’s comments about democratic transitions throughout the Middle East contradict US actions in the region, which, include supporting dictatorial governments in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and preventing early UN involvement in the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict.US Accused of Covert Operations in Somalia (September 10, 2006)
This article in the Observer details how US-based private military companies (PMCs) planned covert military operations inside Somalia in support of President Abdullahi Yusuf's transitional federal government and against the Supreme Islamic Courts Council which currently controls the capital Mogadishu. The article states that correspondence between the PMCs suggests the involvement of the US Central Intelligence Agency. Such foreign involvement in Somalia would violate the UN arms embargo, the author affirms.Watching Lebanon (August 14, 2006)
Israeli military strategists met with US military officials including US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney in early summer 2006 “to get a green light in the bombing operation” in Lebanon. Such meetings, which took place in Washington, suggest that the US had a vested interest in the premeditated July 2006 attack. A US government consultant said that Lebanon “would be a demo for Iran.” This New Yorker article cites the delayed US call for cease-fire as further evidence of Washington’s stake in the conflict.Seoul Seeks Wartime Control Over its Army from US (August 10, 2006)
South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun has called for a shift in the control of his country’s troops from a US general to a South Korean one. Since the Korean War, during war-time, the South Korean military would become an appendage of the US military. Though critics within the country worry that this move will destroy the alliance between Washington and Seoul, Hyun sees the move as necessary for the sovereignty and security of the state. (International Herald Tribune)The Project for a New American Empire (August 9, 2006)
This Sojourners article discusses the “Project for the New American Century” under US President George W. Bush. The conservative think-tank, which aims to promote American global leadership, called for “an aggressive foreign policy with a then-unprecedented military buildup” to retain US hegemony. Before 2000, Democratic politicians largely rejected the project “as the work of hardliners.” However, the author argues that its steadfast implementation since President Bush’s election, most notably the implementation of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, begs the question of whether US citizens were manipulated into following a foreign policy they did not vote for. (Sojourners)Anti-US Feeling Leaves Arab Reformers Isolated (August 9, 2006)
Arab reform activists see US policies in the Middle East as more of an obstruction than an aid to their attempt at reforming governments and human rights in the area. Progressives recognize that “American policy either strangles nascent reform movements or props up repressive governments that remain Washington’s best allies in the region.” US efforts at “liberating” the region have only led to violence. Constant media coverage portrays the US as antagonists causing Middle Easterners to back any anti-US movement, repressive or otherwise. (New York Times)The US Proxies Who Haunt Washington (July 29, 2006)
The US military and CIA provide direct military aid to many US-friendly movements in foreign conflicts. This United States started this trend after failed intervention missions like proxy wars during the Cold War and the Vietnam War. This Asia Times article discusses such historical cases and the US military’s intervention in Somalia.The Axis of Intervention (July 27, 2006)
This Foreign Policy in Focus article cites a growing trend towards unilateral military action as opposed to multilateral diplomacy in solving conflicts. The US and Israel have justified “preventative war” under the “War on Terrorism.” Meanwhile, Japan threatens to preemptively attack North Korea, jeopardizing its “peace constitution.” This dangerous policy threatens to undermine the institutions of international law and global agreements such as the Geneva Conventions.Experts See Proxy War Under Way in Somalia (July 26, 2006)
Ethiopia, Eritrea and Yemen have sent supplies and troops to war-torn Somalia as an outlet for the countries’ own regional tensions. Washington has cautioned other governments from intervening in the conflict and creating a proxy war. Even so, the US has sponsored the transitional government and backed non-religious militias in Somalia, creating its own proxy war. (Associated Press)America's 100 Years of Overthrow (July 25, 2006)
This Texas Observer article details the US overthrow of fourteen foreign governments in the past 100 years. The US endorsed proxy wars in ten of these campaigns. Four of the coups, namely in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam and Chile, Washington carefully planned, financed and executed unilaterally.The Force Is Not with Them (July 17, 2006)
This TomDispatch article discusses the expansion of “Pax Americana,” or “The American Empire,” as a fundamental tenet of the Bush administration. Adherents of “Pax Americana” believe that force solves global issues, placing emphasis on a technologically advanced military. The unconditional reliance on military coercion has led to an interminable war involving multiple governments and proxy wars. The author warns that diplomatic options may quickly slip away.Dropping Musharraf? (July 14, 2006)
US officials and media often refer to China as a growing military competitor. This Foreign Policy in Focus article likens international diplomacy to a chess game, where the US builds ties with other Asian countries to counter the Chinese influence. The author shows how India, Japan, and South Korea have gained US favor and describes Pakistan as “a pawn that has outlived its usefulness.” This article suggests that President Pervez Musharraf may have reason to fear a US-backed regime change in Pakistan.The US Military Descends on Paraguay (July 12, 2006)
Hundreds of US troops entered Paraguay in 2005 for counterterrorism exercises. Since then, the US military has repressed Paraguayan social movements in the name of “security.” Many fear that the influx of US forces signals a plan to topple neighboring Bolivia’s leftist government and seize the country’s abundant natural resources. (The Nation)Italy Arrests Two in Kidnapping of Imam in 2003 (July 6, 2006)
Italy has issued warrants for the arrest of three US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives allegedly involved in Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr’s 2003 kidnapping. Italian prosecutors accuse the CIA and two Italian Intelligence agents of transporting the Muslim cleric from Milan to Egypt where he claims he was tortured. The case adds to mounting international criticism of the US’s “extraordinary rendition” practices. (New York Times)How the United States Continues to Manipulate Nicaragua’s Economic and Political Future (June 22, 2006)
US interference in Nicaraguan affairs has ranged from meddlesome and internally destabilizing proxy wars, to US-funded media outlets and US-sponsored political candidates. Mainstream US media has replaced communism with Latin American “radical populism” as an impending threat and source of fear, unjustly lending support for such interference. This Council on Hemispheric Affairs article follows US political and economic manipulation as it impedes Nicaragua’s self-determination.US Opens New War Front in North Africa (June 14, 2006)
The United States plans to spend US$500 million in the next 5 years on overt “counter terrorism” measures in Northern Africa. The US-backed Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative (TSCTI) marks the country’s unwelcome foray into 9 Saharan Nations. The TSCTI’s main target is the nearly inoperative Salafist Group for Call and Combat. This Asia Times article describes the stagnant group’s decline and the likelihood that US actions will generate terrorism in the region.A Warning to Africa: The New US Imperial Grand Strategy (June 6, 2006)
The US quest for influence in Asia rages forward with wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps Iran. With that region dominated, the next move may become a “Scramble for Africa.” Africa’s resource-rich region will see an increase in US military presence, warns the Center for Civil Society.Ukraine Crowd Tells US Troops to Leave Country (June 3, 2006)
Ukrainian citizens protested the presence of foreign military troops in the country, by blockading transportation of US Marines. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko invited the Marines for joint military exercises in pursuit of Ukrainian membership in NATO. But the Ukrainian parliament has not approved the military exercises, making the presence of foreign troops illegal. (Los Angeles Times)Global Responses to Global Threats: Sustainable Security for the 21st Century (June 2006)
This Oxford Research Group report argues that the main causes of conflict stem from global climate change, competition over resources, “marginalization of the majority world,” and global militarism. These issues, combined with a military approach to terrorism, and the spread of fear-inducing propaganda, detract from realistic peace-building solutions. The authors report that unless world leaders tackle these four causes and refrain from promoting global militarism and waging wars on terrorism, the global system will become irrevocably unstable.US Perceptions of a Chinese Threat (May 31, 2006)
The US Department of Defense 2006 annual report lists China as a likely military threat to the US Navy in the South Pacific region. This Stratfor article points out that while a Chinese attack is unlikely, a mere perceived threat can alter world events. A perceived provocation might lead to US weapons proliferation and US military actions against China.US Secretly Backing Warlords in Somalia (May 17, 2006)
The US government secretly funds “counterterrorist” Somali warlords who are fighting Islamic groups over the control of the Somali capital. Most of Somalia is in anarchy since 1991 and there is no effective policing system. Some Somalis are calling for the US support in stabilizing the country, but as previous US involvement with warlords show, this strategy is bound to fail and backfire on the United States. (Washington Post)A Just War? Hardly (May 9, 2006)
Noam Chomsky believes that proponents of “just war theory” – such as Michael Walzer – are ignoring historical facts. Wars have rarely been “just.” Normally countries waged wars because of their national interests. The US, which proclaimed the interventions in Kosovo and Afghanistan as “just wars” uses this concept as a pretext for “preventive war.” (Khaleej Times)The Latin American Roots of US Imperialism (May 8, 2006)
New York University Professor Greg Gandin argues that past US interventions in Latin America shaped the Bush administration’s model of intervention in the Middle East. US interventions in Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1970s and 80s taught US officials how to manipulate US media and push through destructive neoliberal policies on countries, Gandin says. (Mother Jones)Peddling Democracy the US Way (May 4, 2006)
Author Chalmers Johnson analyzes US efforts to impose its political and economic system on other countries. While the US has justified many military interventions in the name of promoting democracy, Johnson argues that none of the over 200 interventions since World War II produced a democratic government. Focusing on East Asia, Johnson further argues that the region reached economic prosperity by completely ignoring US preaching of free trade and liberalization, while pursuing protectionism and government regulation of the economy. (TomDispatch)Exporting the American Model: Markets and Democracy (May 2, 2006)
Chalmers Johnson argues in this TomDispatch article that nearly every single time the US tried to impose “democracy” on other countries it failed. The US openly supported military dictators in South Korea and a one-party rule in Japan. The recent imposition of “democracy” on Iraq seems bound to fail. Johnson shows that democracy is not exclusively about elections. It is about the importance of public opinion, separation of power and the existence of a mechanism to oust unsatisfactory leaders.Not Terrorism – China Drives up US Military Spending (April 7, 2006)
This Foreign Policy In Focus article argues that the massive defense budget increase proposed by the Bush administration for 2007 is not directed at fighting terrorism, as officially claimed. In reality, China is the reason for such expensive new weapons systems as new nuclear attack submarines and new generations of fighter jets. The Pentagon believes that China has the “greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States” in the future.Pentagon Stays the Course with Laser Weapon (March 22, 2006)
The US continues to finance its Airborne Laser Program. The Pentagon plans to use a Boeing 747 equipped with a high-energy beam weapon as one component of the projected National Missile Defense (NMD) system. However, such a system is very complicated to construct. If ever put in place, the US will use the NMD more against future rivals, such as China, than against terrorists or rogue states. (Space.com)The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy (March/April 2006)
For four decades, “mutual assured destruction” (MAD) defined the relations among the major nuclear powers. But with the US arsenal growing rapidly while Russia's arsenal decays and the Chinese one stays small, the era of MAD is ending. This raises the danger that the US could strike anywhere without fearing a retaliatory attack. (Foreign Affairs)US Plans to Modernize Nuclear Arsenal (March 4, 2006)
This Washington Post article argues that the Bush administration develops plans to modernize nuclear bombs and warheads and the necessary production facilities. The US seeks to “produce warheads on a time scale in which geopolitical threats could emerge.”US Will Be Launching Predator Strikes in the Horn (March 3, 2006)
This allAfrica article claims that East Africa could be the target of US strikes against “suspected al Qaeda elements” in the coming years. Special forces play a major part in that endeavor, but the US will increasingly use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to carry out “unilateral quick strikes.”It's Time for an American Foreign Legion (March 1, 2006)
The US armed forces are stretched thin because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Washington currently does not plan to introduce a draft, as that would cause massive opposition from the US population. Defending US imperial ambitions, a retired military officer claims in this International Herald Tribune article “all superpowers from ancient times turned to mercenaries to defend their interests.”Will Fight for Oil (February 24, 2006)
This New York Times op-ed argues that keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf has constituted a cornerstone of US foreign policy for more than half a century. The US regards any attempt to gain control of this region as an assault on its vital interests, which Washington will repel by any means necessary, including military force. The securing of oil constituted one of the reasons to invade Iraq.Why Is the US Again Hard On Sudan? (February 23, 2006)
Following a discussion with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, President George Bush agreed to support and lobby for an increase of peacekeeping forces in Darfur. Analysts see two main reasons behind Washington’s sudden shift in attitude towards Darfur: Sudan’s oil and geopolitical position. Indeed, Darfur’s location represents an entrance into the Arab world for the US to “prevent Arab countries from turning into a terrorist haven or a hotbed of terrorist activities.” (People’s Daily)'New Populists' vs. the West (February 10, 2006)
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plan to join their “political forces” to counterbalance the “robust” power of the US. Both leaders criticize Washington for accepting Pakistan’s nuclear status while opposing Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. Accusing the Bush administration of “hypocrisy,” they argue that the world superpower’s actions contradict its claims of spreading “democracy.” (Christian Science Monitor)US General Maps Out Strategic Refit for Iraq, Middle East and Asia (February 7, 2006)
US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt stated that Washington plans to “reposture” its troops over a large area covering the Middle East, parts of Africa and Asia. Kimmitt asserts that the US will retain “enough forces” to protect its “national interests.” He also warns that Washington’s “preoccupations” in Iraq and Afghanistan do not prevent it from conducting other operations in the region, such as a military strike against Iran. (Guardian)Ability to Wage 'Long War' Is Key to Pentagon Plan (February 4, 2006)
The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) emphasizes an expansion of US military capabilities and strategies over a 20-year period. The review calls for an increase in the Special Operations Forces, as well as civil affairs and psychological operations units capable of performing worldwide. This “ambitious” new defense strategy also envisions large-scale and long-term clandestine operations in “politically sensitive” and “denied areas.” (Washington Post)The Only Hope for the World (February 1, 2006)
This CommonDreams article argues that Washington’s foreign policy and its tout for “freedom and democracy for all” have turned the country into the “biggest bully” in the world. A “biased” worldview has led the US to demonize the enemy and overthrow democratically elected leaders while siding with dictators. The article criticizes this “arrogant” foreign policy, warning that pride comes before a fall.War and Empire Are and Always Have Been the American Way of Life (February 2006)
This essay written for a Historians Against the War conference outlines US imperial ambitions starting with the arrival of the colonialists on the North American continent in the 1600s. The author then presents numerous examples of US interventions throughout the world demonstrating that the country has been a colonial power ever since its inception in 1776. The piece concludes with an analysis of US actions in the 21st century using the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as a basis for discussion.
Archived Articles
