America’s Experience With Foreign Intervention

     Once again, our nation finds itself poised to use military force to cope with an evolving situation in the Middle East. After spending $2 Trillion and losing almost 5,000 soldiers to install an Islamic, Iranian-oriented state in Iraq, America is now being challenged to re-engage in the war-torn nation and help defend the Shiites from Al Queda extremists. We are coming to the awkward realization that, if we intervene in the conflict, we will be fighting alongside Iran, our mortal enemy. We are told that the advancing forces of ISIS are so evil they were kicked out of Al Queda but the situation is slightly more complicated. They actually are the extremists of Al Queda and are funded partly from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, just like Al Queda.

   The apparent use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war also faced the United States with a difficult conundrum. Should we have the moral stance and strike back against Bashir Assad, punishing his behavior and decreasing his capacity to carry on further attacks? Should we have sought further international support and try to resolve the issue diplomatically? The pathway we seek in these thorny issues will not be easy and the decision we make on our use of force could end up affecting us for many years to come.

Unfortunately, I don’t know the proper course of action in this difficult situation. But, as a student of history, I do know two things: (1) we should be dubious of the justification for military intervention and (2) Any use of military force in the Middle East is likely to be unsuccessful and counterproductive. Throughout human history, nations have gone to war to achieve various goals but the rationale for doing so has almost always been suspect. And when the bullets stop flying, the results are rarely what the participants wanted.

Americans are proud of our democracy and have often gone to war “defending” the principles of liberty and justice. In both World Wars, our participation was based on this broad rationale and Americans felt like we were carrying out a moral crusade by standing up to the forces of fascism and totalitarianism. Later research has shown that our participation in these two conflicts was somewhat more nuanced and other factors were involved that the public was not aware of. In most of our other conflicts, however, the justification for intervention was based on misdirection, misinformation and, let’s face it, just plain lies.

At the beginning of the 20^th Century, America was growing in wealth and prosperity and our nation was beginning to make its presence felt on the World stage. With oceans on both sides of us, we were insulated from the continuous warfare of Europe and most Americans felt we should stay out of foreign entanglements.

This changed overnight on February 15, 1898, when the American battleship Maine exploded and sunk in the harbor of Havana, Cuba. Suddenly, public outrage pushed the government into action.

People had already been subjected to information on supposed “atrocities” by the Spanish rulers of Cuba. Two of the biggest newspaper publishers in the country, Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, were in a circulation war and both felt that a war would definitely boost readership of their newspapers.

Frederick Remington, working for Hearst, portrayed an incident where a Cuban woman was allegedly searched by Spanish authorities for rebel messages. The search actually happened but it was made by a female matron.

They began publishing inflammatory, fact-challenged reports of Spanish atrocities that whipped up enthusiasm for retaliatory action. Using a dopy-looking cartoon character called the “Yellow Kid,” Hearst pushed hard for war and the biased news reporting on the issue became known as “Yellow Journalism.”

The media of the time ignored facts and just printed information supporting a war.

Essentially, both publishers swayed US public opinion to believe that the Cuban people were being unjustly persecuted by the Spanish, and that the only way for them to gain their independence was through American intervention.
With the sinking of the Maine (blamed on the Spanish), The US declared war with Spain and our “Splendid Little War” took us to Cuba, the Pacific and eventually, to the Philippines. When the dust had settled, we had defeated the Spanish navy in Manila Harbor and America suddenly became a global power, with possessions all over the globe.

"Remember the Maine" became a rallying call for a generation of Americans who believed the explosion had been set by Spain.

But our grandiose vision of the American ascendency was marred by the fact that the outcome of the war did not exactly work out for the best. We found ourselves “nation-building” in the Philippines but our efforts were hampered by a 10-year insurgency that was eventually put down by brute force. It turns out Filipinos don’t like occupiers any more than Iraqis do.
 The World Wars, as has been mentioned were seen as much more “righteous” wars and deception doesn’t seem to play a large part in entering both conflicts but the desired outcome of both never materialized. Waged to make the World “safe for democracy,” these wars resulted in massive destruction, millions of deaths and economic devastation in Europe and Japan. Obviously, World War I failed in that the defeated nation of Germany was right back at it and within 20 years, democracy was threatened once again. World War II certainly didn’t defeat Democracy’s enemies, considering that after the war we just switched the Nazis for the Communists and just went right on fighting.
 Our foreign intervention really began picking up in the 1950s. Once we learned in Guatemala how easy it is to overthrow another country with covert action, we began to use the technique with other problem nations. When the democratically-elected President of Iran asked for a bigger percentage of oil profits being taken from his country, the US decided an intervention was necessary. Intelligence agents distributed propaganda, hired fake supporters and stirred up foment until the country’s leader was overthrown. 
   Our preferred substitute, The Shah of Iran turned out to be a brutal dictator, who used his elite intelligence unit, the SAVAK, to suppress all dissent and intimidate the country’s citizens. When the Shah was overthrown and American intelligence agents were taken captive, our nation was outraged that a foreign nation would challenge our supremacy and we have essentially been in a proxy war with Iran ever since. Pretty much all of our current problems with Iran go back to our misguided intervention in their own sovereign affairs in 1954. 
  Since Communism became such a perfect enemy, we began taking them on wherever we could across the globe, usually with negative consequences. Using the discredited “Domino Theory” past administrations argued that it was necessary to intervene militarily to stop the spread of this political scourge.

The military argued that all of Asia would fall to the Communists without our intervention.

Only America, it was argued, could stop the Communists from their plan to enslave the World. Americans were told that we must intervene in Korea, and later Vietnam, because the evil Communists would seize every other country in the World if we did not take a stand for democracy. In both cases, the U.S. suffered its first military “defeats” (although we liked to characterize them as a draw….). Especially in Vietnam we learned that there are limits to having massive military superiority.

Propaganda would have us believe America was "forced" to fight in Vietnam.

Deception was also used, of course, in getting us more entangled in Vietnam. Falsely claiming that one of our warships had been brazenly attacked by North Vietnam, the U.S. military convinced Congress, and a majority of Americans, that we must take a stand to defend democracy once more and punish the Vietnamese for their bad behavior.

It is said that LBJ carried around a copy of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to show anyone who challenged his authority to carry on the war.

     We all know how that one came out. Millions of deaths later, America quietly withdrew from the war-ravaged nation after having dropped more ordinance on this tiny Asian nation than had been dropped in all of World War II. Today, land mines and Agent Orange are still causing suffering in Vietnam.
After our embarrassing performance in Vietnam, the military needed an ego-booster so, in 1983, they conceived of an intervention that would make us all feel good but would pose little danger to our military forces. Ronald Reagan, who wanted to reinforce his image as a tough, no-nonsense leader, had been bothered when the liberal-leaning Maurice Bishop was elected President of this tiny, Caribbean nation. Why not get rid of this nuisance and show off our military prowess at the same time? U.S. intelligence agents whipped up opposition to Bishop and talked his opponents into taking action. 

  

News reporting made it seem like we were the saviors of this poor nation.

When the popular President was seized and executed, American troops flooded the island, claiming they were there to “protect” some American medical students studying there.

Propaganda was issued to let the people of Grenada know that we were there to "save" them from Communism.

  We got rid of Bishop, alright, but we were condemned by the United Nations, and our actions were considered "a flagrant violation of international law."The U.S. vetoed the resolution, of course. Over 5,000 medals were awarded for valor to American troops…..

The Grenada invasion might have helped US troop morale but it did little to affect the situation for the average residents of the island.

 I doubt there are any Americans left who don’t know that our involvement in Iraq was based on lies, in fact many of them. Bush administration officials, somehow beholden to a think-tank plan known as the New American Century, seemed to honestly believe that getting rid of Iraq’s President, Saddam Hussein, would usher in a new era of democracy in the Middle East. But their many falsehoods, including the supposed “weapons of mass destruction,” ties to Osama bin Laden, and the pending mushroom cloud dragged us into the conflict with bad intelligence, no Iraqi support and pretty much no plan for what happens afterwards.
   Of course, the lying about Iraq did not originate with George W Bush. His father also should share responsibility for involving us in this Middle Eastern country. Many have already forgotten that deception was used to get us involved in the first Iraq invasion. Americans were shocked by the testimony of an Iraqi young woman named Nariyah, who told the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers entering a Kuwaiti hospital, seizing the baby incubators there and leaving the babies to die on the floor. The U.S., claiming to be standing up for standards of decency and human rights, intervened and brought us the first Gulf War.

Americans were horrified at Nariyah's vivid description of the inhuman killing of infants. They only learned later that the whole thing had been a lie.

  Later, it turned out that Nariyah was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States and that her false testimony had been provided as part of a propaganda effort to convince Americans to act. The entire story, of course, was false. 

     Although we did succeed in the stated goal of getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, most people would admit the issue was not really resolved by our actions. Hussein remained as the country’s leader and George W. Bush apparently felt the need to resolve the “unfinished business” of Iraq 12 years later. 

     So, as we ponder the decision to intervene once again in the affairs of yet another Middle Eastern country, we should consider our past experiences with military interventions. Based on our history, we should have learned to be highly-suspicious of the reasons and rationale for warfare and we must certainly question whether the expected results will actually turn out. In fact, our track record in Africa and the Middle East is so dismal, it’s hard to see how any military involvement could possibly make things better. For 50 years, America has squandered its wealth, prestige and human resources in one military action after another, all supposedly to advance the cause of democracy and economic advancement. What we have ACTUALLY achieved is a bankrupt economy, thousands of dead soldiers, millions of foreign victims, and a terrible loss of prestige around the World.

We've tried war many times but Peace - not so much!

     The belief that military might is necessary to achieve our goals must be seriously questioned at this point. The Pentagon would be hard pressed to come up with any successes they can point to when it comes to questions of national defense. We have consistently sought war when other ways to resolve crises have been available. Maybe it really is time to “Give Peace a Chance.”