It is universally acknowledged that the United States, which has been known as the protector of freedoms and the torchbearer of democracy, has also been, since the end of World War II, the most interventionist nation in the affairs of other countries, both in times of peace and war, covertly and overtly.
Since 1945, the United States has intervened militarily or through orchestrated coups, in addition to its atomic bombing of Japan. Its interventions include Korea (1950–1953), Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and the Dominican Republic (1965), Lebanon (1958 and thereafter), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (2003), Somalia (1991), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995), Serbia and Kosovo (1999), and Afghanistan (2001–2021).
The U.S. also attacked Libya in 1986 and Syria in 2014, and targeted Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Mali, and other countries with airstrikes and drone attacks under the pretext of combating terrorism. Among the most notable countries that experienced coups or regime changes with direct or indirect U.S. support are Iran, Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, and Haiti.
This included actions under “Operation Condor,” which backed right-wing military regimes in Latin America during the 1970s. All of these interventions were carried out under the pretext of combating communism or protecting U.S. national interests. Of all these military actions, the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 stands out as exceptional and perhaps the most ethical in the history of American interventions. Every step taken to liberate Kuwait was conducted with an international mandate from the United Nations Security Council with the aim of restoring the sovereignty of an occupied state rather than overthrowing an elected government. This account is not an expression of sympathy for tyrants; rather, it rejects the moral oversimplification that reduces history and ignores context and facts.
It was therefore strange that some dubious figures, known for their peculiar political leanings, welcomed the abduction of Venezuelan dictator Maduro from his bed along with his wife, who were taken to face trial in America under its terms, and most likely to sentence him politically to decades in prison. According to this supportive view, what Trump did meant he stood with the Venezuelan people. Those who hold this view revealed the shallowness of their understanding and their audacity by comparing what happened in Venezuela to the liberation of Kuwait. Maduro’s downfall did not occur under an international mandate.
No reputable nation openly expressed approval of the operation, which stunned the world. Some dictators reportedly began to worry, fearing they could be next on the list of those plotting to seize Greenland by force and annex Canada. The events in Venezuela were not a military invasion in the classic sense, but rather a cyberwar that exposes the vulnerability of any nation that acts independently. It was a war in which the CIA played a decisive role. Therefore, the presence of democracy in a country does not necessarily mean its government’s ethics or foreign policy are exemplary.
By Ahmad alsarraf
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
