Lesson Three – USA foreign interventions

Lesson 3 – USA Full Spectrum Dominance the global agenda

Having established full spectrum dominance, what is the purpose of that dominance? Is there a single goal that directs foreign interventions by the United States of America; and if there is a single goal, what is?

We have already considered recent interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria. But are these a recent aberration, simply a series of unfortunate misadventures? The official narrative is that the USA consistently strives to promote democracy, human rights and trade liberalisation around the world. Is this true?

To answer the question, we need to look further back to see if there is a consistent pattern. Let’s briefly list some of the better documented foreign policy interventions. They are: Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.[1]

So in summary:

• What are the systematic behaviours and repeating patterns?
• Who benefits and who loses from these behaviours?
• What can we learn from sources close to the action and from subject matter experts outside of journalism?
• What perspective are we not hearing?

The basic facts about these interventions are as follows: Korea and Vietnam were proxi wars against the Soviet block on behalf of the people and government of South Korea and South Vietnam respectively. The Korean war was fought under the auspices of the United Nations, and the Vietnam war was strictly an affair of the United States and ANZUS forces. In Chile and Argentina, the US backed military coups against elected left leaning governments. In El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Haiti the US backed vicious military dictatorships against left leaning movements. In Nicaragua the US backed right wing militia against an elected left leaning government. In Panama the US backed a military dictator but overthrew him when he was deemed to be too friendly with the USSR. In Yugoslavia the USA and NATO backed Muslim militia in a nasty civil war that was taking place between Serbia and other groups. In so doing they destroyed the Serbian economy and created a new country called Kosovo at the expense of historic Serbia. In Afghanistan the USA backed Islamic militia ‘mujahedeen’ to overthrow a secular left leaning government that enjoyed friendly relations with the USSR, then invaded after 9/11 in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat the Taliban they helped create.[2]

In Iran the USA overthrew a democratically elected secular left leaning government[3] and installed a military dictator ‘the Shah’. In 1979 the Shah was overthrown in a popular revolution after which radical Islamists came to power.[4] The US then backed another military dictator in Iraq – Saddam Hussein who fought a devastating eight year war with Iran.

The government of Saddam Hussein was noted for human rights abuses but was stable, secular, and enjoyed friendly relations with the West including Australia. Following a border dispute with another Western backed dictatorship in Kuwait, Hussein was speedily demonised by the American press and establishment, and a UN mandated invasion took place. This invasion largely destroyed the Iraqi military but left Hussein in power. Following this, a genocidal economic blockade of Iraq preceded outright invasion in 2003.[5] This takes us back to the beginning of the Neocon plan to take down seven countries in seven years and our previous discussion on Libya and Syria.

So, using our method, what are the systemic behaviours and repeating patterns? Are there any factors which the subjects of US intervention had in common?

Factors which are not common are:

• Whether democracy or dictatorship
• Whether or not abuses human rights
• Whether or not practices or supports terrorism
• Whether secular or Islamic
• Whether government or political movement
• Whether friendly towards the US and allies or not

In other words, the form of government and the human rights record has no bearing on US policy. So what are the common factors? These are charted below. For convenience only interventions against a dozen governments are listed.[6] However, interventions against mass social movements within various target counties seeking land and wage reform for example, follow an identical pattern.

US Interventions Against National Government by Country Listed Against Key Factors

Clearly this runs contrary to the official narrative that the US seeks to promote democracy and human rights through its foreign policy. Applying our method, what would be expect to see if this were true? Obviously not all interventions would work out as planned but there should be an overall trend towards freedom and democracy. Let’s  consider 20 better known examples since WWII by type of intervention:

US Intervention by Type

The only country that became a stable prosperous democracy as a result of these interventions is South Korea.

…and the Winners are?

So applying our method further – who benefits and who loses?

Consistently the beneficiaries of the US interventions listed have been:

• Western multinational companies
• Private oil and gas interests
• The International Monetary Fund and Western Banks
• The comprador elite in the target country
• The CIA and the US military industrial complex

The consistent losers have been the populations of the target country apart from the comprador elites. The other consistent losers have been the USSR and later Russia. There have been other incidental winners and losers – Islamic terrorism comes in as a big winner, but only in certain parts of the world.

The consistent pattern is that privatisation, asset stripping, and austerity invariably follows any successful intervention. On that basis we conclude that the latter part of the statement is partially true: “the USA consistently strives to promote trade liberalisation around the world.” The statement “the USA consistently strives to promote democracy, human rights…” is false.

Conclusion: The purpose of US interventions since the Korean war has been global hegemony by denying countries ownership of their natural resources, control their financial systems, or ownership of their key infrastructure, the protection of their legitimate interests, self-determination, or the development of regional powers and alliances.

Continuing our method, can we test this conclusion? Are there countries which have some or all of the key factors, in which the US has not intervened? Saudi Arabia and Norway have national control of their oil. Why have they not been invaded?

The answer is that both are special cases. Norway is a Northern European nation. Aggressive actions there could fracture NATO. The US has however worked hard on the diplomatic front seen by the recent decision of Norway to undermine its historic alliance with Sweden and purchase the American Joint Strike Fighter in preference to the Swedish Grippen (JAS).

Saudi Arabia is a US ally in the Middle East and operates largely as an American protectorate. The United States profits from the sale of Saudi Oil because Saudi has agreed with the US to only sell its oil in US dollars. This arrangement underpins the role of the US dollar as a world reserve currency and allows the US to print money and export inflation. These two exceptions are not sufficient to contradict our conclusion and the conclusion holds.

So if you were a patriotic Russian or Chinese person faced with a global military commanded by a messianic political group bent on world hegemony, what would you do? What indeed are they doing?

[1] For a more comprehensive list see here: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html For a comprehensive analysis see here: http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/More_Books_and_Reports/Noam_Chomsky-Turning_the_Tide%20_US_intervention_in_Central_America_and_the_Struggle_for_Peace.pdf

For a brief and comprehensive list of interventions see here: https://www.globalpolicy.org/us-military-expansion-and-intervention/26024.html

[2] For a pictorial essay of Afghanistan before the CIA backed Islamists took over see here: http://all-that-is-interesting.com/1960s-afghanistan For a historical summary see here: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=itc

[3] See further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état

[4] For a visual insight into Iranian life before the Islamists took over see here: http://all-that-is-interesting.com/shah-iran

[5] See further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq and here: http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/op-ed-us-uk-genocide-against-iraq-1990-2012-killed-3-3-million-including-750k-children/article21016.html

[6] According to historian John Coatsworth, the US overthrew 41 governments just in Latin America between 1898 and 1994.