The US Empire's changing face masks old ambitions

[ahfatzia]

General Martin Dempsey


They looked like a gang of geriatric giants. Clad in smart casual attire - dress shirts, sweaters, and jeans - and incongruous blue hospital booties, they strode around "the world," stopping to stroke their chins and ponder this or that potential crisis. Among them was General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a button-down shirt and jeans, without a medal or a ribbon in sight, his arms crossed, his gaze fixed. He had one foot planted firmly in Russia, the other partly in Kazakhstan, and yet the general hadn't left the friendly confines of Virginia.

Several times this year, Dempsey, the other joint chiefs, and regional war-fighting commanders have assembled at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico to conduct a futuristic war-game-meets-academic-seminar about the needs of the military in 2017. There, a giant map of the world, larger than a basketball court, was laid out so the Pentagon's top brass could shuffle around the planet - provided they wore those scuff-preventing shoe covers - as they thought about "potential US national military vulnerabilities in future conflicts" (so one participant told the New York Times). The sight of those generals with the world underfoot was a fitting image for Washington's military ambitions, its penchant for foreign interventions, and its contempt for (non-US) borders and national sovereignty.

In September, for example, Lieutenant General Robert L Caslen, Jr, revealed that, just months after the US military withdrew from Iraq, a unit of Special Operations Forces had already been redeployed there in an advisory role and that negotiations were underway to arrange for larger numbers of troops to train Iraqi forces in the future. That same month, the Obama administration won congressional approval to divert funds earmarked for counter-terrorism aid for Pakistan to a new proxy project in Libya. According to the New York Times, US Special Operations Forces will likely be deployed to create and train a 500-man Libyan commando unit to battle Islamic militant groups which have become increasingly powerful as a result of the 2011 US-aided revolution there.

Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that the US military had secretly sent a new task force to Jordan to assist local troops in responding to the civil war in neighboring Syria. Only days later, that paper revealed that recent US efforts to train and assist surrogate forces for Honduras's drug war were already crumbling amid a spiral of questions about the deaths of innocents, violations of international law, and suspected human rights abuses by Honduran allies.

Shortly after that, the Times reported the bleak, if hardly surprising, news that the proxy army the US has spent more than a decade building in Afghanistan is, according to officials, "so plagued with desertions and low re-enlistment rates that it has to replace a third of its entire force every year." Rumors now regularly bubble up about a possible US-funded proxy war on the horizon in Northern Mali where al-Qaeda-linked Islamists have taken over vast stretches of territory - yet another direct result of last year's intervention in Libya.

And these were just the offshore efforts that made it into the news. Many other US military actions abroad remain largely below the radar. Several weeks ago, for instance, US personnel were quietly deployed to Burundi to carry out training efforts in that small, landlocked, desperately poor East African nation. Another contingent of US Army and Air Force trainers headed to the similarly landlocked and poor West African nation of Burkina Faso to instruct indigenous forces.

At Camp Arifjan, an American base in Kuwait, US and local troops donned gas masks and protective suits to conduct joint chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear training. In Guatemala, 200 Marines from Detachment Martillo completed a months-long deployment to assist indigenous naval forces and law enforcement agencies in drug interdiction efforts.

Across the globe, in the forbidding tropical forests of the Philippines, Marines joined elite Filipino troops to train for combat operations in jungle environments and to help enhance their skills as snipers. Marines from both nations also leapt from airplanes, 10,000 feet above the island archipelago, in an effort to further the "interoperability" of their forces. Meanwhile, in the Southeast Asian nation of Timor-Leste, Marines trained embassy guards and military police in crippling "compliance techniques" like pain holds and pressure point manipulation, as well as soldiers in jungle warfare as part of Exercise Crocodilo 2012.

But when you consider how the Pentagon really operates, such war-gaming undoubtedly has an absurdist quality to it. After all, global threats turn out to come in every size imaginable, from fringe Islamic movements in Africa to Mexican drug gangs. How exactly they truly threaten US "national security" is often unclear - beyond some White House adviser's or general's say-so. And whatever alternatives come up in such Quantico seminars, the "sensible" response invariably turns out to be sending in the Marines, or the SEALs, or the drones, or some local proxies. In truth, there is no need to spend a day shuffling around a giant map in blue booties to figure it all out.

In one way or another, the US military is now involved with most of the nations on Earth. Its soldiers, commandos, trainers, base builders, drone jockeys, spies, and arms dealers, as well as associated hired guns and corporate contractors, can now be found just about everywhere on the planet.

The sun never sets on American troops conducting operations, training allies, arming surrogates, schooling its own personnel, purchasing new weapons and equipment, developing fresh doctrine, implementing novel tactics, and refining their martial arts. The US has submarines trolling the briny deep and aircraft carrier task forces traversing the oceans and seas, robotic drones flying constant missions and manned aircraft patrolling the skies, while above them, spy satellites circle, peering down on friend and foe alike.

Since 2001, the US military has thrown everything in its arsenal, short of nuclear weapons, including untold billions of dollars in weaponry, technology, bribes, you name it, at a remarkably weak set of enemies - relatively small groups of poorly-armed fighters in impoverished nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen - while decisively defeating none of them. With its deep pockets and long reach, its technology and training acumen, as well as the devastatingly destructive power at its command, the US military should have the planet on lockdown. It should, by all rights, dominate the world just as the neo-conservative dreamers of the early Bush years assumed it would.

Yet after more than a decade of war, it has failed to eliminate a rag-tag Afghan insurgency with limited popular support. It trained an indigenous Afghan force that was long known for its poor performance - before it became better known for killing its American trainers. It has spent years and untold tens of millions of tax dollars chasing down assorted firebrand clerics, various terrorist "lieutenants," and a host of no-name militants belonging to al-Qaeda, mostly in the backlands of the planet. Instead of wiping out that organization and its wannabes, however, it seems mainly to have facilitated its franchising around the world.

At the same time, it has managed to paint weak regional forces like Somalia's al-Shabaab as transnational threats, then focus its resources on eradicating them, only to fail at the task. It has thrown millions of dollars in personnel, equipment, aid, and recently even troops into the task of eradicating low-level drug runners (as well as the major drug cartels), without putting a dent in the northward flow of narcotics to America's cities and suburbs.

It spends billions on intelligence only to routinely find itself in the dark. It destroyed the regime of an Iraqi dictator and occupied his country, only to be fought to a standstill by ill-armed, ill-organized insurgencies there, then out-maneuvered by the allies it had helped put in power, and unceremoniously bounced from the country (even if it is now beginning to claw its way back in). It spends untold millions of dollars to train and equip elite Navy SEALs to take on poor, untrained, lightly-armed adversaries, like gun-toting Somali pirates.

In a government filled with agencies routinely derided for profligacy, inefficiency, and producing poor outcomes, its record may be unmatched in terms of waste and abject failure, though that seems to faze almost no one in Washington. For more than a decade, the US military has bounced from one failed doctrine to the next. There was Donald Rumsfeld's "military lite," followed by what could have been called military heavy (though it never got a name), which was superseded by General David Petraeus's "counterinsurgency operations" (also known by its acronym COIN).

Convinced nonetheless that finding just the right formula for applying force globally is the key to success, the US military is presently banking on that new six-point plan. Tomorrow, it may turn to a different war-lite mix. Somewhere down the road, it will undoubtedly again experiment with something heavier. And if history is any guide, counterinsurgency, a concept that failed the US in Vietnam and was resuscitated only to fail again in Afghanistan, will one day be back in vogue.

American politicians never tire of extolling the virtues of the US military, which is now commonly hailed as "the finest fighting force in the history of the world." This claim appears grotesquely at odds with reality. Aside from triumphs over such non-powers as the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada and the small Central American nation of Panama, the US military's record since World War II has been a litany of disappointments: stalemate in Korea, outright defeat in Vietnam, failures in Laos and Cambodia, debacles in Lebanon and Somalia, two wars against Iraq (both ending without victory), more than a decade of wheel-spinning in Afghanistan, and so on.

Something akin to the law of diminishing returns may be at work. The more time, effort, and treasure the US invests in its military and its military adventures, the weaker the payback. In this context, the impressive destructive power of that military may not matter a bit, if it is tasked with doing things that military might, as it has been traditionally conceived, can perhaps no longer do.

Success may not be possible, whatever the circumstances, in the twenty-first-century world, and victory not even an option. Instead of trying yet again to find exactly the right formula or even reinventing warfare, perhaps the US military needs to reinvent itself and its raison d'๊tre if it's ever to break out of its long cycle of failure.

Instead, expect the politicians to continue to heap on the praise, Congress to continue insuring funding at levels that stagger the imagination, presidents to continue applying blunt force to complex geopolitical problems (even if in slightly different ways), arms dealers to continue churning out wonder weapons that prove less than wondrous, and the Pentagon continuing to fail to win.

Coming off the latest series of failures, the US military has leapt headlong into yet another transitional period - call it the changing face of empire - but don't expect a change in weapons, tactics, strategy, or even doctrine to yield a change in results. As the adage goes: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

By Nick Turse Asia Times Online :: Empire's changing face masks old ambitions

 

[ahfatzia]

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.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890


The sun never sets on American troops conducting operations.

Sounds familiar, was there another Empire that did the same a couple of centuries ago?

 

[Oldman1]

Good post. I'm afraid China is doing the same thing about so called protecting their territories in Asia. Hence why many Asian nations are fearful of it. Back centuries ago when China was dominant in Asia and expanding. The same empire centuries ago.

 

[PakShah]

USA should just mind their own business.

Why they doing this to world? Why don't they help the world instead?

Why don't solve the Palestinian conflict according to just and moral principles?

WHY DOESN'T USA JUST DO THE RIGHT THING?

Oh well, thats why USA is disliked so much. whatever USA messed up.

 

[anon45]

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.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890


The sun never sets on American troops conducting operations.

Sounds familiar, was there another Empire that did the same a couple of centuries ago?

Actually no, there hasn't been another country or empire that has done what we are doing on such a scale. The closest is the Soviet Union.

We have allies all over the world, we have a presence all over the world, we have responsibilities all over the world, we are invited by many countries all over the world to help train their troops and build connections for hopefully long lasting and fruitful relationships.

This guy is simply a hater, it is present in his wording and how he shapes his article.

He does give out vague facts, but in such a way as to emphasize the bad rather than the good. His article is unbalanced, with a clear bias, and so his opinion on what should be done is of limited utility, (1. because he doesn't offer much except 'reinvent ourselves', 2. he doesn't elaborate on the consequences/tradeoffs of his preferred path, there are always tradeoffs). Because of this, one cannot make an informed decision, he is essentially a snake oil salesman, with far less credibility than those whose jobs would actually be on the line when making these decisions.


TL;DR: I hate how this guy is trying to guide you into his opinion rather than letting you decide yourself.

 

[ahfatzia]

Nick Turse is a journalist, historian and author. He is the editor of The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan (Verso, 2010), which brings together leading analysts from across the political spectrum, and the author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 2008).

Turse is the associate editor of the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com and his writing frequently appears on that website. His writing has also appeared in The Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Nation, Adbusters, GOOD magazine, Le Monde Diplomatique (English- and German- language), In These Times, Mother Jones and The Village Voice, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Baltimore Sun, The Chicago Tribune, The Contra-Costa Times, The Fort Worth Star Telegram, The Hartford Courant, The Indianapolis Star, The Knoxville News Sentinel, The Salt Lake Tribune, The Seattle Times, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Tampa Tribune, among others.

Turse was the recipient of a Ridenhour Prize at the National Press Club in April 2009 for his years-long investigation of mass civilian slaughter by U.S. troops in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta, in 1968-1969, during Operation Speedy Express. In his article for The Nation, “A My Lai a Month,” he also exposed a Pentagon-level cover-up of these crimes that was abetted by a major news magazine. In 2009, he also received a James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism from Hunter College for the same article.

The Ridenhour Prize foundation said of Turse:

With his Nation article “A My Lai a Month”, Nick Turse proved Ron Ridenhour’s long-held conviction that the massacre at My Lai was not an aberration. Turse uncovered declassified documents that disclosed an Army investigation of “Speedy Express,” an offensive in the Mekong Delta—mere months after My Lai—in which the Ninth Infantry Division claimed an enemy body count of 10,899 while only capturing 748 weapons. In his article, Turse writes, “The investigation paints a disturbing picture of civilian slaughter on a scale that indeed dwarfs My Lai, and of a cover-up at the Army’s highest levels.”

Turse has previously been a fellow at Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study and New York University's Center for the United States and the Cold War. He has a Ph.D in Sociomedical Sciences from Columbia University and is an internationally-recognized authority on U.S. war crimes during the Vietnam War. He has provided expert commentary on U.S. atrocities in Southeast Asia for such publications as The New York Times and U.S. News and World Report.

Nick Turse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sounds like Nick Turse credentials are mile long and is well respected by many intellectual circles. But then no one can be like by all and in his case, I'm sure, certain establishments within the conservative American government and some similar minded followers might have problems with his way of thinking.

 

[gambit]

USA should just mind their own business.

Why they doing this to world? Why don't they help the world instead?

What a joke. It was the Europeans who had colonies all over the world and with Imperial Japan started two world wars. It was the Russians and the Europeans who gave the world communism and the Cold War. It was US who shielded the rest from communism. Did the muslims do anything? Zilch. It was US who gave the world the economic anchor that allowed the free countries, including the muslims', to prosper. Not counting other areas of technology, medicine, education, and so on. What did the muslims gave within the last 100 yrs? Oil.

Why don't solve the Palestinian conflict according to just and moral principles?

And the muslims have no hand in this?

WHY DOESN'T USA JUST DO THE RIGHT THING?

More than the muslims have.

Oh well, thats why USA is disliked so much. whatever USA messed up.

We are more preferred than the muslims.

 

[ahfatzia]

Good post. I'm afraid China is doing the same thing about so called protecting their territories in Asia. Hence why many Asian nations are fearful of it. Back centuries ago when China was dominant in Asia and expanding. The same empire centuries ago.

Are you sure you got your history right, old buddy? I only heard of the 'sun never set' in the British empire but never knew China had an empire further from its border, unless you mean the mighty Mongolian Empire.

BTW how do you know Asian nations fear China, did you ask them or you read it from NYT?

 

[Viper0011.]

What did the muslims gave within the last 100 yrs? Oil.

And the muslims have no hand in this?

More than the muslims have.

We are more preferred than the muslims.

Common Gambit. Not sure why you are coming off as against muslims (kinda). You are better than that. Every single point you made in the main paragraph is accurate about the US and its global responsibilities. By putting the above muslims related statements, you've lost the effectiveness of the points you've made. Anyway, just wanted to point out. Keep spreading the great knowledge.

 

[gambit]

Nick Turse is a journalist, historian and author. He is the editor of The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan (Verso, 2010), which brings together leading analysts from across the political spectrum, and the author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 2008).

At least Nick Turse is free -- FREE -- to pursue his journalism, whereas in China...

In China, A Ceaseless Quest To Silence Dissent : NPR

In China, government critics call it "the era of stability maintenance." It's their label for the government's policy over the past decade of prizing internal stability above all else, no matter the cost.

<snip>

And so the paradox: The more stability is "maintained," the less stable the country becomes.

The actions of a few US soldiers gone 'psycho' are state sponsored in China and considered tame by PLA and Red Guards standards. By the way, Nick Turse is a regular at theamericanconservative website.

Nick Turse | The American Conservative

American conservatives are willing to consider opposition opinions while 'The Party' seeks to oppress the same. Congratulations for making yourself look foolish. But then again, it should be a regular thing for you by now when it comes to the US.

 

[ahfatzia]

^^^Same old same old. When an argument is not to liking you start to use personal attacks, belittle Chinese and smear everything negative on China to derail the thread. SOS, (sign) I'm really tired of listening to you.

Don't you have any meaningful thoughts on the subject at hand? Like how you feel about contributing your hard earned tax dollars or forfeit your future social security incomes to the adventures of a few men?

 

[ahfatzia]

A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS



* 1890..................South Dakota................300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

* 1890..................Argentina......................Buenos Aires interests protected

* 1891..................Chile.............................Marines clash with nationalist rebel

* 1891..................Haiti..............................Black revolt on Navassa defeated

* 1892...................Idaho............................Army suppresses silver miners' strike

* 1893- ................Hawaii............................Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed

* 1894..................Chicago.........................Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed

* 1894..................Nicaragua......................Month-long occupation of Bluefields

* 1894-5...............China.............................Marines land in Sino-Japanese War

* 1894-6...............Korea.............................Marines kept in Seoul during war

* 1895..................Panama.........................Marines land in Colombian province

* 1896..................Nicaragua.......................Marines land in port of Corinto

* 1898-1900..........China.............................Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies

* 1898-1910-.........Philippines.....................Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos

* 1898-1902-.........Cuba.............................Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base

* 1898- .................Puerto Rico...................Seized from Spain, occupation continues

* 1898- .................Guam...........................Seized from Spain, still use as base

* 1898- .................Minnesota.....................Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake

* 1898 ..................Nicaragua .....................Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur

* 1899- .................Samoa .........................Battle over succession to throne

* 1899 ..................Nicaragua .....................Marines land at port of Bluefields

* 1899-01 .............Idaho ............................Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region

* 1901 .................Oklahoma .....................Army battles Creek Indian revolt

* 1901-1914 .........Panama ........................Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone; Opened canal 1914.

* 1903 .................Honduras ......................Marines intervene in revolution

* 1903-04 ..............Dominican Republic .......U.S. interests protected in Revolution

* 1904-05 ..............Korea ............................Marines land in Russo-Japanese War

* 1906-09 ..............Cuba ............................Marines land in democratic election

* 1907 ...................Nicaragua ....................."Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up

* 1907 ...................Honduras ......................Marines land during war with Nicaragua

* 1908 ...................Panama ........................Marines intervene in election contest.

* 1910 ...................Nicaragua ......................Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto

* 1911 ...................Honduras .......................U.S. interests protected in civil war

* 1911-1914 ...........China .............................Continuous occupation with flare-ups

* 1912 ...................Cuba ..............................U.S. interests protected in civil war

* 1912 ...................Panama ......................... Marines land during heated election

* 1912 ...................Honduras ........................Marines protect U.S. economic interest

* 1912-33 ...............Nicaragua .......................10-year occupation, fought guerrillas

* 1913 ....................Mexico ...........................Americans evacuated during revolution

* 1914 ....................Dominican republic ..........Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo

* 1914 ....................Colorado .........................Breaking of miners' strike by Army

* 1914-18 ................Mexico ...........................Series of interventions against nationalists

* 1914-34 ................Haiti ...............................19-year occupation after revolts

* 1915 .....................Texas .............................Federal soldiers crush "Plan of San Diego" Mexican-American rebellion

* 1916-24 ................Dominican Republic .........8-year Marine occupation

* 1917-33 ................Cuba ...............................Military occupation, economic protectorate

* 1917-18 ................WWI ...............................Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years

* 1918-22 ................Russia ............................Five landings to fight Bolsheviks

* 1918-20 ................Panama .........................."Police duty" during unrest after elections

* 1919 .....................Honduras .........................Marines land during election campaign

* 1919 .....................Yugoslavia ........................intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia

* 1920 .....................Gautemala .......................2-week intervention against unionists

* 1920-21 .................West Virginia ...................Army intervenes against mineworkers

* 1922 ......................Turkey ............................Fought nationalists in Smyrna

* 1922-27 ..................China ..............................Deployment during nationalist revolt

* 1923 ......................Mexico .............................Airpower defends Calles from rebellion

* 1924-25 ..................Honduras .........................Landed twice during election strife

* 1925 .......................Panama ...........................Marines suppress general strike

* 1927-34 ...................China ..............................Marines stationed throughout the country

* 1932 .......................El Salvador ......................Warships send during Marti revolt

* 1932 .......................Washington DC ................Army stops WWI vet bonus protest

* 1941-45 ...................WWII ...............................Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germany for 3 years; first nuclear war

* 1943 .......................Detroit ...............................Army put down Black rebellion

* 1946 .......................Iran ...................................Soviet troops told to leave north

* 1946 .......................Yugoslavia .........................Response to shoot-down of US plane

* 1947 ........................Uruguay ............................Bombers deployed as show of strength

* 1947-49 ...................Greece ..............................U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war

* 1948 ........................Germany ..........................Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift

* 1948-49 ....................China ...............................evacuate Americans before Communist victory

* 1948-54 ....................Philippines ........................CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion

* 1950 .........................Puerto Rico ......................Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce

* 1951-53- ....................Korea ..............................U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate, still have bases

* 1953 .........................Iran ..................................CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah

* 1954 .........................Vietnam ............................French offered bombs to use against siege

* 1954 .........................Guatemala ........................CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands

* 1956 .........................Egypt ................................Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners

* 1958 .........................Lebanon .............................Army & Marine occupation against rebels

* 1958 .........................Iraq ....................................Iraq warned against invading Kuwait

* 1958 .........................China .................................China told not to move on Taiwan isles

* 1958 .........................Panama .............................Flag protests erupt into confrontation

* 1960-75 .....................Vietnam .............................Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam, longest war for US

* 1961 .........................Cuba ..................................CIA-directed exile invasion fails

* 1961 .........................Germany ............................Alert during Berlin Wall crisis

* 1962 .........................Laos ..................................Military buildup during guerrilla war

* 1962 .........................Cuba .................................Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union

* 1963 .........................Iraq ....................................CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power

* 1964 .........................Panama ..............................Panamanians shot for urging canal's return

* 1965 .........................Indonesia .............................Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup

* 1965-66 ....................Dominican republic ...............Army & Marines land during election campaign

* 1966-67 ....................Guatemala ...........................Green Berets intervene against rebels

* 1967 .........................Detroit ..................................Army battles African Americans, 43 killed

* 1968 .........................US .......................................After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities

* 1969-75 .....................Cambodia .............................Up to 2 m killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos

* 1970 ..........................Oman ...................................U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion

* 1971-73 .....................Laos .....................................U.S. directs S Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside

* 1973 ..........................South Dakota ........................Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas

* 1973 ..........................Mideast ................................World-wide alert during Mideast War

* 1973 ..........................Chile .....................................CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president

* 1975 ..........................Cambodia ..............................Gassing of captured ship Mayagüez, 28 die when copter shot down

* 1976-92 ......................Angola ..................................CIA assists South African-backed rebels

* 1980 .......................... Iran .......................................Hostage rescue, 8 troops die in copter-plane crash

* 1981 ...........................Libya .................................... Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers

* 1981-92 ......................El Salvador .............................Advisers, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers involved actions

* 1981-90 ......................Nicaragua ...............................CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines

* 1982-84 ......................Lebanon ..................................Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells ..............................................................................Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.

* 1983-84 ......................Grenada ...................................Invasion four years after revolution

* 1983-89 ......................Honduras .................................Maneuvers help build bases near borders

* 1984 ...........................Iran .........................................Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf

* 1986 ...........................Libya .......................................Air strikes to topple Qaddafi gov't

* 1986 ...........................Bolivia ......................................Army assists raids on cocaine region

* 1987-88 ...................... Iran ..........................................On Iraq in war, defend reflagged tankers and shoot down civilian jet

* 1989 ...........................Libya ........................................Two Libyan jets shot down

* 1989 ...........................Virgin Islands .............................St. Croix Black unrest after storm

* 1989 ...........................Philippines .................................Air cover provided for government against coup

* 1989- ..........................Panama .....................................Nationalist government ousted by soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.

* 1990 ...........................Liberia ........................................Foreigners evacuated during civil war

* 1990-91 ......................Saudi Arabia .............................. Iraq invade Kuwait,540,000 troops stationed nearby

* 1990-91 .......................Iraq ............................................Air strikes; 200,000+ killed

* 1991 ...........................Kuwait ........................................Kuwait royal family returned to throne

* 1991-2003 ...................Iraq .............................................No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes ........................................................................................and naval-enforced economic sanctions

* 1992 ...........................Los Angeles ................................Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising

* 1992-94 ......................Somalia ......................................U.S led UN occupation during civil war; raids against Mogadishu faction

* 1992-94 ......................Yugoslavia ..................................NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro

* 1993- ..........................Bosnia .......................................No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs

* 1994 ...........................Haiti ..........................................Blockade against military gov't; troops restore Pres Aristide

* 1996-97 .......................Zaire (Congo) .............................Troops at Rwandan where Congo revolution begins

* 1997 ...........................Liberia ........................................Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners

* 1997 ...........................Albania .......................................Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners

* 1998 ...........................Sudan .........................................Attack on pharm plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant

* 1998 ...........................Afghanistan .................................Missiles on training camps

* 1998 ...........................Iraq .............................................Intensive air strikes after inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions

* 1999 ...........................Yugoslavia ...................................NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo, occupy

* 2000 ...........................Yeman ........................................USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed

* 2001 ...........................Macedonia ..................................NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels

* 2001 ...........................US ..............................................Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC

* 2001- ..........................Afghanistan .................................30,000 U.S. troops overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda

* 2002 ...........................Yeman .........................................Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda

* 2002- ...........................Philippines ..................................Train Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels

* 2003- ...........................Columbia .....................................US special force back up Colombian military protect oil pipeline

* 2003-............................Iraq ..............................................US led UN force for WMD

* 2003 ............................Liberia ..........................................Peacekeeping as rebels drove out leader

* 2004-05 .......................Haiti .............................................Marines & Army land after right-wing rebels oust Aristide

* 2005- ...........................Pakistan .......................................Drone strikes

* 2006- ...........................Somalia ........................................Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion

* 2008 ............................Syria ........................................... Special Forces in helicopter raid from Iraq

* 2009- ...........................Yeman .........................................Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians

* 2011- ........................... Libya ...........................................NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks


http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

 

[VCheng]

What is the point you wish to make with the above list?

For example:

* 1993- .........Bosnia ......No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs

What stopped the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia? US military intervention!

 

[ahfatzia]

What is the point you wish to make with the above list?

For example:

What stopped the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia? US military intervention!

This thread is not to put all America military interventions in bad lights but rather, because the frequency of its adventures and how quick the civilian leaders ordered their deployments due to the influences of the hawkish elements in the military, can lead the country to a new form of colonialism if it haven't done so already.

The facts are out there for people to witness. There's no retrain whatever for the US to threaten or the actual use of force whatever little perceived threat comes up. Diplomacy is no longer a norm but an exception now a day for the Americans. This trend is very dangerous, if continues and expanded, to the world at large and to the Americans themselves.

If nothing else happen soon enough, bankruptcy for America is imminent and drag the world down with her.

 

[VCheng]

This thread is not to put all America military interventions in bad lights but rather, because the frequency of its adventures and how quick the civilian leaders ordered their deployments due to the influences of the hawkish elements in the military, can lead the country to a new form of colonialism if it haven't done so already.

The facts are out there for people to witness. There's no retrain whatever for the US to threaten or the actual use of force whatever little perceived threat comes up. Diplomacy is no longer a norm but an exception now a day for the Americans. This trend is very dangerous, if continues and expanded, to the world at large and to the Americans themselves.

If nothing else happen soon enough, bankruptcy for America is imminent and drag the world down with her.

"War is diplomacy by other means." - Clausewitz.

It is diplomacy still!