The Insanity of U.S. Intervention

The definition of insanity is often defined as something lacking reason or good sense, which is true. However, the defining characteristic of insanity that is often omitted: trying something over, repeatedly, expecting a different outcome. Much has been the case throughout of American intervention for the cause of establishing democratic nations. The most current example is the conflict in Iraq, which is becoming a case-in-point on how not to intervene in foreign territories.

In the recently published book, A Faustian Foreign Policy, author Joan Hoff discusses the inanities of wars for democracy by citing a 2003 Carnegie Endowment survey in The Christian Science Monitor of regime changes forced by the United States in the 20th century. “[O]f the eighteen regime changes forced by the Unite States in the 20th century, only 5 resulted in democracy, and in the case of wars fought unilaterally, the number goes down to one — Panama” (hardly an applauded event). Yet, the argument continues to go that democracy can be imposed from above, especially by military intervention — which, in less developed regions, is often the case.

Further failures at American lead transformations aboard can be seen in hyper version of Globaization called the “Washington Consensus.” America’s idea that modern global capitalism, based on free trade, open markets, unregulated international investments, and dramatic improvements in communication technology will bring prosperity and personal freedom abound has “yet to produce anything like universal prosperity,” says Hoff. The neo-liberal ideas, namely capitalism, are products of Western values, some cultures are simply less culturally adaptable to its development. There is even evidence that suggest that neo-liberal policies run counter to the development of democracies, because neo-liberalism fosters “anarchical economic forces that undermine national cultural and political institutions that might otherwise foster democratic governments.” The neo-liberal bete noire is the reform period in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s, resulting in what is known as the “lost decade,” General Pinochet, the Argentine Junta, and severe inflation that still plagues the the Latino nations today.

American interventionism is hardly the efficient machine is it often made out to be. It can be especially hard to shift through the patriotic fog that blinds sound perception. I’ve talked about American Exceptionalism — the driving force behind American interventionism — before, and had concluded long ago that it does much harm to America’s credibility at home and throughout the world. As is clearly obvious, America has once again embarked upon the great unilateral crusade, this time into the desert of death and turmoil. Very similar economic policies that have been tried and failed are being tried again in Iraq. The “Green Zone” and the selling off of occupational duties to Private Military Contractors and huge Multinational Corporations. America is sub-contracting the reconstruction of Iraq to billion dollar MNCs and other private organizations in an attempt to turn Iraq into a seabed of foreign investment in the hopes that it may one day be the quintessential capitalist, free trade center of the Middle East.

American unilateralism in Iraq is highly unlikely to produce anything closely resembling a viable democracy — if a democracy at all. As much as I want to see Iraq succeed as a democratic state, the notion crumbles under the mounting evidence that Iraq is not in the process of democratic “transition,” but destructive sectarian civil war. The incessant call for “stay the course” has become the sign post for ignorance and stubborn nationalism. The notion that we must stay in Iraq “until the job is done” is applying tried tactics that have proven failure. The insistence on what has become the proverbial protracted occupation is down right insane, if you ask me.