America’s Recent Achievements in the Middle East

America’s Recent Achievements in the Middle East

Eric Zuesse

Here are before-and-after pictures, at, of what the U.S. government has achieved, in the Middle East:

Screen Shot 2016-07-29 at 8.44.11 AM

What’s especially interesting there, is that in all of these missions, except for Iraq, the U.S. was doing it with the key participation of the Saud family, the royals who own Saudi Arabia, and who are the world’s largest buyers of American weaponry. Since Barack Obama came into the White House, the operations — Libya, Yemen, and Syria — have been, to a large extent, joint operations with the Sauds. ‘We’ are now working more closely with ‘our’ ‘friends’, even than ‘we’ were under George W. Bush.

As President Obama instructed his military, on 28 May 2014:

When issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake — when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us — then the threshold for military action must be higher. In such circumstances, we should not go it alone. Instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action. We have to broaden our tools to include diplomacy and development; sanctions and isolation; appeals to international law; and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action. In such circumstances, we have to work with others because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed.

So: ’we’ didn’t achieve these things only on our own, but instead in alliance with the royals of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and other friendly countries, which finance jihadists everywhere but in their own country. And, of course, all of ‘us’ are allied against Russia, so we’re now surrounding that country with ‘our’ NATO partners before we do to it what we’ve previously done to Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Syria. America is becoming even more ambitious, because of ‘successes’ like these in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine.

The United States has been the great champion of ‘democracy’ throughout the world. And these are are some of the results of that ‘democracy’. ‘We’ are spreading it abroad.

‘Our’ latest victory has been ‘our’ spreading it to Ukraine. No country is closer to Russia than that.

Inside America, the term that’s used for referring to anyone who opposes this spreading of ‘democracy’, is ‘isolationist’, and this term is imported from the meaning that it had just prior to America’s joining World War II against Hitler and other fascists. Back in that time, an “isolationist” meant someone who didn’t want to defeat the fascists. The implication in the usage of this term now, is that the person who is an ‘isolationist’ is a ‘fascist’, just as was the case then. It’s someone who doesn’t want to spread ‘democracy’. To oppose American foreign policy is thus said to be not only ‘right wing’, but the extremist version of that: far right-wing — fascist, perhaps even nazi, or racist-fascist. (Donald Trump is rejected by many Republicans who say that he’s ‘not conservative enough’. Democrats consider him to be far too ‘conservative’. The neoconservative Democrat Isaac Chotiner, whom the Democratic neoconservative Slate hired away from the Democratic neoconservative The New Republic, has headlined at Slate, “Is Donald Trump a Fascist?” and he answered that question in the affirmative.) George Orwell dubbed this type of terminological usage “Newspeak.” It’s very effective.

Studies in America show that the people who are the most supportive of spreading ‘democracy’ are individuals with masters and doctoral degrees (“postgraduate degrees”). Those are the Americans who vote for these policies, to spread American ‘democracy’, to foreign lands. They want more of this — more of these achievements. (Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders nationwide among the “postgraduate” group.) Some of these people pride themselves on being “technocrats.” They claim that the world needs more of their ‘expertise’. Lots of them come forth on the ‘news’ media to validate such invasions as Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria after 2011, etc. Almost all of them possess doctoral degrees. This shows what they have learned. They are the most employable, the highest paid, the most successful, in their respective fields.

After all: ‘democracy’ is not for amateurs. It’s only for people who take instruction, and who do what they are told. But, told by whom? Whom are they obeying? Do they even know? In any organization, when an instruction is issued, is it always easy to know who issued it? And what happens to a person who doesn’t carry it out? There is a winnowing process. The constant survivors are the ones who rise from that process, and who ultimately win the opportunity to issue some of the instructions themselves. These people are the wheat; everybody else is chaff, which gets discarded, in a ‘democracy’.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • There are still three more countries to flatten after all of these years later. Hang the Bankers!

    General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years

    “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

    General Wesley Clark Asked About 7 Country War Plan

  • jo6pac

    Amerika, death and refugees what we do best. It won’t stop unless as Carl points out they need to be arrested. I’m not sure if that will happen in my life time, Go long on pitchforks.

    • Brockland A.T.

      The two things that bothers me when Herman calls for arrests, is who will be arresting whom and how they will go about it.

      I can see the neocons pulling an Erdogan on any remaining patriots in the state apparatus and rational people in the Deep State itself.

  • Brockland A.T.

    Hilary is going to try and beat the guys as those ME ‘accomplishments’.

    She made the Obama regime a whole lot worse than it had to be.

    Trump 2016, the strategic choice.

    Jill Stein (Green Party), the moral choice.

    • Eric Zuesse

      There’s nothing moral about not voting (which includes voting for Stein); it’s immoral because choosing the lesser of two evils is, in fact, as good as the difference in evil between those two evils, and because that difference, regarding the case-at-hand, is considerable (given Hillary’s record versus Trumps having no record). The certainty of evil is far worse than the mere possibility of evil, and this is especially so, in the present case, because the certainty of evil regarding Hillary, is the certainty of massive evil, not of only minor evil.

      Not to vote (including ‘voting’ for a sure loser) is just as bad as is the difference in badness between the two options, and this here means it’s very bad — not moral at all, but the opposite: very immoral.

      One of the most reliable indications that Trump is probably a terrific human being is that NPR, Huffington Post, etc., are pulling out all the stops to stop him. On domestic issues, I support Sanders, but international issues are by far more important in this election, and I love Donald Trump for giving me what at least now seems to be an alternative to the bloodiest and most corrupt politician of them all, which is Hillary Clinton. If any other of the 17 Republican candidates (except Rand Paul) were to have run, then, indeed, I would be voting at all on the Presidential line on November 8th, because 15 of those candidates were as evil as is Hillary. I am ecstatic that Trump won the Republican nomination; I shall vote Republican for the first time in my life.

      • Brockland A.T.

        You’re right, but some people just cannot and will not vote Trump, so that vote may as well go to Jill Stein instead of the Libertarians.

        I’ll try and use different descriptors for Stein in the future.

        Trump 2016 – The lesser evil is the greater good.

        Jill Stein – The unattainable good. Face it, she ain’t beating Hilary.

  • ICFubar

    Yes, the spreading of ‘Democracy’ is the latest buzz word of the Imperial Hegemonic Mantra of western colonizing aggression inherited by Washington as the new capital unifying all the old European Empires of the 19th and 20th centuries. ‘Democracy spreading’ is newspeak for the old ‘white man’s burden.’

  • Laura Green