Pro-Israel propagandist Jeffrey Goldberg made an inadvertent but profound admission the other day when he said: “[T]he U.S. have been waging a three-decade war for domination of the Middle East.”
This “three-decade war for domination of the Middle East” becomes apparent when we consider how many Muslim countries the peace-loving United States and her “stalwart ally” Israel have bombed:
During Bill Clinton’s presidency, the U.S. bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan.
In the time of George Bush, the U.S. bombed Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia.
Under Barack Obama, the U.S. is currently bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. According to some reports (see here and here), we can add Iran to this ever-expanding list. [Update: An Informed Comment reader named Shannon pointed out that in fact the United States bombed Iran in 1988 during Operating Praying Mantis, an act that "cannot be justified" according to the International Court of Justice.]
Thanks to American arms and funding, our “stalwart ally” Israel has bombed every single one of its neighbors, including Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Israel has also bombed Tunisia and Iraq (how many times can Americans and Israelis bomb this country?).
The total number of Muslim countries that America and Israel have bombed comes to fourteen:Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Tunisia.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has military bases in several countries in the Greater Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, UAE, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, Kyrgyzstan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Chad. The U.S. also used to have a base in Eritrea and demanded another one in 2010. [Update: (There is a minor error here pointed out to me by Prof. Juan Cole: the U.S. troops stationed in Uzbekistan are using an Uzbek, not American, base). However, this makes little substantive difference: there is still a U.S. military presence in that country, which was my point.]
Here’s what that looks like on a map of the Greater Middle East:
I wonder where those silly Muslims come up with the conspiratorial, absolutely irrational idea that the U.S. is waging war against the Muslim world?
If you haven’t already seen this video, I strongly suggest you watch it:
With seven active wars in seven different Muslim countries, it is quite an amazing thing that Americans can have the audacity to ask: “why are Muslims so violent and warlike?”
But, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The New York Times reports that President Barack Obama “widened” the war, which is now being waged across “two continents” in “roughly a dozen countries — from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics,” using “robotic drones and commando teams” as well as “contractors” and “local operatives.”
Even more worrisome, the Washington Post reports that America’s “secret wars” are waged by “Special Operations forces” in “75 countries” (and “that number will likely reach 120″); in other words, the United States will have engaged in military acts in over 60% of the world’s nation-states. After all of this, Americans will turn around and ask: “why are Muslims so violent and warlike?”
Could it possibly be more obvious that the War on Terror is just a pretext for global domination?
* * * * *
Every four years, Americans get the illusion of choice: the choice between Democrat and Republican. In terms of foreign policy, the difference is like the difference between Coke and Pepsi. In the last election, John McCain sang a variation of the famous Beach Boys song “Barbara Ann,” changing the lyrics to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!”; meanwhile, Barack Obama hinted at expanding the war to Pakistan. The American voter was given the choice not between war and peace, but between war against Iran or war against Pakistan.
In the national discourse, there exists a bipartisan consensus on the need for perpetual war: both candidates agreed on the need to expand the War on of Terror and attack more Muslim countries. There was no confusion about whether or not to bomb, invade, and occupy–the question was only where to do this. If the Muslim world were imagined to be a turkey, the question was then only whether to begin munching on the leg first or to start with the breast.
President Barack Obama may have disagreed with his predecessor’s tactics, but he agreed with the Bush/Cheney world view. Obama may have thought we could move around troops here and there–let’s move some of these troops from Iraq to Afghanistan–but he did not disagree with the basic premise, overall methods, and goals of the Bush/Cheney War on of Terror.
Interestingly, Obama was considered to be “the peace candidate”; even more absurd of course was that he ended up winning the Noble Peace Prize. While it is true that the Democratic Obama has tended to use less hawkish language, in terms of actions Obama has a worse record than Bush: Obama has expanded the War on of Terror, both in terms of covert and overt wars.
Why did a “liberal” Democrat (Barack Obama) end up being more warlike than a “hawkish” Republican (George Bush)? There is of course the obvious explanation of war inertia. But aside from this, there must be something deeper, which is apparent if we look at the situation between what were historically the two large parties in Israel.
Western media (see Time Magazine, for example), portrays the Labor Party as “dovish” and Likud as “hawkish”. Certainly, in terms of rhetoric this is true. But, is it really true? According to experts in the field–such as Prof. Noam Chomsky and Dr. Norman Finkelstein, Labor has had a far worse track record toward Palestinians than the Likud. Labor and Likud play good cop, bad cop toward Palestinians–or rather bad cop, badder cop. But while the two parties disagree on rhetoric and tactics, they share similar overall goals.
The same is the case with Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats use softer rhetoric, whereas the Republicans continually push the national discourse (the “center”) rightward. But, because a Democratic president must counter the accusation that he is “weak” on matters of “defense” (Orwell: offense is defense), he must be Strong and Tough against Terrorism. Effectively this means that his war policy becomes virtually indistinguishable from that of the political right.
Furthermore, President Barack Obama has done something that no Republican could do: he has brought bipartisan consensus to the state of perpetual and global war. During the reign of George Bush, prominent liberal progressives criticized his warlike policies. In fact, this was one of the motivating factors behind electing Obama, who would bring “Change.” Yet, when Obama brought more of the same, most liberal progressives fell silent, a hypocrisy that did not go unnoticed by conservatives.
It took a “liberal” Democrat to expand the War on of Terror and give it bipartisan consensus, just as it took a conservative Republican (Richard Nixon) to make peace with Communist China.
Under the two-party system, it really does not matter which side wins. A Republican candidate might sound more warlike than a Democrat, but once in office, he softens his position somewhat due to Democratic opposition (even though most of the Democrats won’t vote against war resolutions). Meanwhile, a Democrat president must prove that he is Strong and Tough against Terrorism, so he hardens his position. In the end, Democratic and Republican presidents are moved to the political “center” (which keeps getting pushed ever more to the right), so that the two are virtually indistinguishable from each other. Perhaps Barack Obama was onto something when he said:
There’s not a liberal America or a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.
It is true: America’s politicians are united in their endorsement of perpetual and global war.
The United States has a long history of bipartisan consensus when it comes to waging wars of aggression. In 1846, the country was divided between the hawkish Democratic party led by President James K. Polk and the supposedly dovish Whig party. Polk’s administration saber-rattled against Mexico in order to justify invading and occupying their land. Meanwhile, “[t]he Whig party was presumably against the war,” but “they were not so powerfully against the military action that they would stop it by denying men and money for the operation” (p.153 of Prof. Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States). In fact, the “Whigs joined Democrats in voting overwhelmingly for the war resolution, 174 to 14.” They did so, because “[t]hey did not want to risk the accusation that they were putting American soldiers in peril by depriving them of the materials necessary to fight.” The only dissenters were “a small group of antislavery Whigs, or a ‘little knot of ultraists,’ as one Massachusetts Congressman who voted for the war measure put it.” Perhaps among them was Ron Paul’s great grandfather.
The measure passed the Congress (174 to 14) and the Senate (40 to 2), “Whigs joining Democrats.” The Whigs “could only harry the administration with a barrage of verbiage while voting for every appropriation which the military campaigns required.” In any case, “the United States would be giving the blessings of liberty and democracy” to the Mexicans. Any of this sound familiar?
Flash forward to today and we see the establishment left consistently supporting America’s wars of aggression. Even while these avowed liberals criticize right-wingers for warmongering against Iran, they themselves often saber-rattle against Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia. The right thinks we’re doing something great in Iraq and wants to expand the war to Iran (which we may already have done). Meanwhile, the left thinks we were right to bomb Afghanistan and that we should expand the war to Pakistan (which we've already done). Neither left or right opposes foreign wars altogether. The difference is only with regard to the names of the countries we bomb, which doesn't really matter since the truth is that we are bombing all of them now.
This is because both left and right agree with the Supreme Islamophobic Myth: that Islam (or radical Islam) is the greatest threat to world peace. This inevitably leads to the central tenet of Islamophobia, which is to endorse the Supreme Islamophobic Crime: bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands.
Peace can only be attained when one is disabused of this mother of nationalistic myths. This can only be done by realizing that it is the United States that is the greatest threat to peace in the region (look at the map!). Consider that the U.S. has bombed at least a dozen Muslim countries in recent history, whereas zero Muslim countries have bombed the U.S. If “wars of aggression” constitute “the supreme international crime”–as decided during the Nuremberg Trials–then what does it say about the situation when America has initiated multiple wars of aggression against the Muslim world whereas no single Muslim country has done so against the United States?
No Muslim country has attacked us because the risks of doing so are far too great; it would mean almost certain destruction. This is why, even though the map of the Middle East in the image above looks like it does, no Muslim country has the audacity to retaliate. Meanwhile, the U.S.–as the world’s only superpower–can attack multiple smaller countries without fear of significant retaliation to the American heartland. Therefore, it only makes sense for people of conscience, especially Americans, to be highly critical of U.S. foreign policy.
* * * * *
Something else troubling I've noticed about the national discourse is how even those opposed to war (or at least one set of wars) will frame their opposition in financial terms. The primary argument to convince Americans against war seems not to be the fact that war is immoral, that bombing countries and killing so many countless civilians is morally repugnant, but rather that it’s just too costly to do so. It’s our wallets, not our soul, that is at stake.
Another argument that takes precedence over the moral argument includes the idea that too many of our troops are dying (victim inversion); alternatively, it is argued (rightfully) that such wars increase the likelihood of terrorism against us (another example of victim inversion).
During the Nuremberg Trials, it was decided that initiating a war of aggression constituted “the supreme international crime”:
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
Of what moral character would you consider a Nazi official if he argued against Hitler’s wars on the basis of “it will cost too much German tax payer money” or “it will kill too many German soldiers” or “it may result in retaliation against Germany?” (Refer to Glenn Greenwald’s article on Godwin’s law.)
Would it not be better to use as one’s central argument against America’s wars that it is morally repugnant to bomb and kill people?
In concluding this article with some food for thought, let us take a look at the list below. This is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2011.
This does not include:
[About the list: Among sources used, beside news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corp History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug, 1982), "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, and Ellsberg in Protest & Survive.
Versions of this list have been published on Zmag.org, Neravt.com, and numerous other websites.
Translations of list: Spanish French Turkish Italian Chinese Greek Russian Czech Tamil Portuguese
Quotes in Christian Science Monitor and The Independent
Turkish newspaper urges that the United States be listed in Guinness Book of World Records as the Country with the Most Foreign Interventions.]
COUNTRY OR STATE | Dates of intervention | Forces | Comments |
SOUTH DAKOTA | 1890 (-?) | Troops | 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee. |
ARGENTINA | 1890 | Troops | Buenos Aires interests protected. |
CHILE | 1891 | Troops | Marines clash with nationalist rebels. |
HAITI | 1891 | Troops | Black revolt on Navassa defeated. |
IDAHO | 1892 | Troops | Army suppresses silver miners' strike. |
HAWAII | 1893 (-?) | Naval, troops | Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed. |
CHICAGO | 1894 | Troops | Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed. |
NICARAGUA | 1894 | Troops | Month-long occupation of Bluefields. |
CHINA | 1894-95 | Naval, troops | Marines land in Sino-Japanese War |
KOREA | 1894-96 | Troops | Marines kept in Seoul during war. |
PANAMA | 1895 | Troops, naval | Marines land in Colombian province. |
NICARAGUA | 1896 | Troops | Marines land in port of Corinto. |
CHINA | 1898-1900 | Troops | Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies. |
PHILIPPINES | 1898-1910 (-?) | Naval, troops | Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos |
CUBA | 1898-1902 (-?) | Naval, troops | Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base. |
PUERTO RICO | 1898 (-?) | Naval, troops | Seized from Spain, occupation continues. |
GUAM | 1898 (-?) | Naval, troops | Seized from Spain, still use as base. |
MINNESOTA | 1898 (-?) | Troops | Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake. |
NICARAGUA | 1898 | Troops | Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur. |
SAMOA | 1899 (-?) | Troops | Battle over succession to throne. |
NICARAGUA | 1899 | Troops | Marines land at port of Bluefields. |
IDAHO | 1899-1901 | Troops | Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region. |
OKLAHOMA | 1901 | Troops | Army battles Creek Indian revolt. |
PANAMA | 1901-14 | Naval, troops | Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone; Opened canal 1914. |
HONDURAS | 1903 | Troops | Marines intervene in revolution. |
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC | 1903-04 | Troops | U.S. interests protected in Revolution. |
KOREA | 1904-05 | Troops | Marines land in Russo-Japanese War. |
CUBA | 1906-09 | Troops | Marines land in democratic election. |
NICARAGUA | 1907 | Troops | "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up. |
HONDURAS | 1907 | Troops | Marines land during war with Nicaragua |
PANAMA | 1908 | Troops | Marines intervene in election contest. |
NICARAGUA | 1910 | Troops | Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto. |
HONDURAS | 1911 | Troops | U.S. interests protected in civil war. |
CHINA | 1911-41 | Naval, troops | Continuous occupation with flare-ups. |
CUBA | 1912 | Troops | U.S. interests protected in civil war. |
PANAMA | 1912 | Troops | Marines land during heated election. |
HONDURAS | 1912 | Troops | Marines protect U.S. economic interests. |
NICARAGUA | 1912-33 | Troops, bombing | 10-year occupation, fought guerillas |
MEXICO | 1913 | Naval | Americans evacuated during revolution. |
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC | 1914 | Naval | Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo. |
COLORADO | 1914 | Troops | Breaking of miners' strike by Army. |
MEXICO | 1914-18 | Naval, troops | Series of interventions against nationalists. |
HAITI | 1914-34 | Troops, bombing | 19-year occupation after revolts. |
TEXAS | 1915 | Troops | Federal soldiers crush "Plan of San Diego" Mexican-American rebellion |
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC | 1916-24 | Troops | 8-year Marine occupation. |
CUBA | 1917-33 | Troops | Military occupation, economic protectorate. |
WORLD WAR I | 1917-18 | Naval, troops | Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years. |
RUSSIA | 1918-22 | Naval, troops | Five landings to fight Bolsheviks |
PANAMA | 1918-20 | Troops | "Police duty" during unrest after elections. |
HONDURAS | 1919 | Troops | Marines land during election campaign. |
YUGOSLAVIA | 1919 | Troops/Marines | intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia. |
GUATEMALA | 1920 | Troops | 2-week intervention against unionists. |
WEST VIRGINIA | 1920-21 | Troops, bombing | Army intervenes against mineworkers. |
TURKEY | 1922 | Troops | Fought nationalists in Smyrna. |
CHINA | 1922-27 | Naval, troops | Deployment during nationalist revolt. |
MEXICO HONDURAS |
1923 1924-25 |
Bombing Troops |
Airpower defends Calles from rebellion Landed twice during election strife. |
PANAMA | 1925 | Troops | Marines suppress general strike. |
CHINA | 1927-34 | Troops | Marines stationed throughout the country. |
EL SALVADOR | 1932 | Naval | Warships send during Marti revolt. |
WASHINGTON DC | 1932 | Troops | Army stops WWI vet bonus protest. |
WORLD WAR II | 1941-45 | Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear | Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war. |
DETROIT | 1943 | Troops | Army put down Black rebellion. |
IRAN | 1946 | Nuclear threat | Soviet troops told to leave north. |
YUGOSLAVIA | 1946 | Nuclear threat, naval | Response to shoot-down of US plane. |
URUGUAY | 1947 | Nuclear threat | Bombers deployed as show of strength. |
GREECE | 1947-49 | Command operation | U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war. |
GERMANY | 1948 | Nuclear Threat | Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift. |
CHINA | 1948-49 | Troops/Marines | evacuate Americans before Communist victory. |
PHILIPPINES | 1948-54 | Command operation | CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion. |
PUERTO RICO | 1950 | Command operation | Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce. |
KOREA | 1951-53 (-?) | Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats | U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases. |
IRAN | 1953 | Command Operation | CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah. |
VIETNAM | 1954 | Nuclear threat | French offered bombs to use against seige. |
GUATEMALA | 1954 | Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat | CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua. |
EGYPT | 1956 | Nuclear threat, troops | Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners. |
LEBANON | l958 | Troops, naval | Army & Marine occupation against rebels. |
IRAQ | 1958 | Nuclear threat | Iraq warned against invading Kuwait. |
CHINA | l958 | Nuclear threat | China told not to move on Taiwan isles. |
PANAMA | 1958 | Troops | Flag protests erupt into confrontation. |
VIETNAM | l960-75 | Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats | Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969. |
CUBA | l961 | Command operation | CIA-directed exile invasion fails. |
GERMANY | l961 | Nuclear threat | Alert during Berlin Wall crisis. |
LAOS | 1962 | Command operation | Military buildup during guerrilla war. |
CUBA | l962 | Nuclear threat, naval | Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union. |
IRAQ | 1963 | Command operation | CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service. |
PANAMA | l964 | Troops | Panamanians shot for urging canal's return. |
INDONESIA | l965 | Command operation | Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup. |
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC | 1965-66 | Troops, bombing | Army & Marines land during election campaign. |
GUATEMALA | l966-67 | Command operation | Green Berets intervene against rebels. |
DETROIT | l967 | Troops | Army battles African Americans, 43 killed. |
UNITED STATES | l968 | Troops | After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities. |
CAMBODIA | l969-75 | Bombing, troops, naval | Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos. |
OMAN | l970 | Command operation | U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion. |
LAOS | l971-73 | Command operation, bombing | U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside. |
SOUTH DAKOTA | l973 | Command operation | Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas. |
MIDEAST | 1973 | Nuclear threat | World-wide alert during Mideast War. |
CHILE | 1973 | Command operation | CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president. |
CAMBODIA | l975 | Troops, bombing | Gassing of captured ship Mayagüez, 28 troops die when copter shot down. |
ANGOLA | l976-92 | Command operation | CIA assists South African-backed rebels. |
IRAN | l980 | Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing | Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution. |
LIBYA | l981 | Naval jets | Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers. |
EL SALVADOR | l981-92 | Command operation, troops | Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash. |
NICARAGUA | l981-90 | Command operation, naval | CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution. |
LEBANON | l982-84 | Naval, bombing, troops | Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks. |
GRENADA | l983-84 | Troops, bombing | Invasion four years after revolution. |
HONDURAS | l983-89 | Troops | Maneuvers help build bases near borders. |
IRAN | l984 | Jets | Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf. |
LIBYA | l986 | Bombing, naval | Air strikes to topple Qaddafi gov't. |
BOLIVIA | 1986 | Troops | Army assists raids on cocaine region. |
IRAN | l987-88 | Naval, bombing | US intervenes on side of Iraq in war, defending reflagged tankers and shooting down civilian jet. |
LIBYA | 1989 | Naval jets | Two Libyan jets shot down. |
VIRGIN ISLANDS | 1989 | Troops | St. Croix Black unrest after storm. |
PHILIPPINES | 1989 | Jets | Air cover provided for government against coup. |
PANAMA | 1989 (-?) | Troops, bombing | Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed. |
LIBERIA | 1990 | Troops | Foreigners evacuated during civil war. |
SAUDI ARABIA | 1990-91 | Troops, jets | Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel. |
IRAQ | 1990-91 | Bombing, troops, naval | Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military. |
KUWAIT | 1991 | Naval, bombing, troops | Kuwait royal family returned to throne. |
IRAQ | 1991-2003 | Bombing, naval | No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions |
LOS ANGELES | 1992 | Troops | Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising. |
SOMALIA | 1992-94 | Troops, naval, bombing | U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction. |
YUGOSLAVIA | 1992-94 | Naval | NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. |
BOSNIA | 1993-? | Jets, bombing | No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs. |
HAITI | 1994 | Troops, naval | Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup. |
ZAIRE (CONGO) | 1996-97 | Troops | Troops at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins. |
LIBERIA | 1997 | Troops | Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. |
ALBANIA | 1997 | Troops | Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. |
SUDAN | 1998 | Missiles | Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant. |
AFGHANISTAN | 1998 | Missiles | Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies. |
IRAQ | 1998 | Bombing, Missiles | Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions. |
YUGOSLAVIA | 1999 | Bombing, Missiles | Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo. |
YEMEN | 2000 | Naval | USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed. |
MACEDONIA | 2001 | Troops | NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels. |
UNITED STATES | 2001 | Jets, naval | Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC |
AFGHANISTAN | 2001-? | Troops, bombing, missiles | Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation. |
YEMEN | 2002 | Missiles | Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen. |
PHILIPPINES | 2002-? | Troops, naval | Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao. |
COLOMBIA | 2003-? | Troops | US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline. |
IRAQ | 2003-? | Troops, naval, bombing, missiles | Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases. |
LIBERIA | 2003 | Troops | Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader. |
HAITI | 2004-05 | Troops, naval | Marines & Army land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington. |
PAKISTAN | 2005-? | Missiles, bombing, covert operation | CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network. |
SOMALIA | 2006-? | Missiles, naval, troops, command operation | Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents. |
SYRIA | 2008 | Troops | Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians |
YEMEN | 2009-? | Missiles, command operation | Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels |
LIBYA | 2011-? | Bombing, missiles, command operation | NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against Qaddafi government during uprising by rebel army. |
Tags:
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
© 2024 Created by truth. Powered by