by Daniel Kovalik
October 07, 2016
In the aftermath of
the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 - an invasion
which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition
it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 - there was much
discussion in the media about
the Bush Administration's goal for
"nation-building" in that country.
Of course, if there ever were
such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears the
term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective
The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no intentions of helping
to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere.
we see time and again, e.g. in,
...the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether
stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively the destruction
and balkanization of independent states...
However, it is important to
recognize that this goal is not new.
Indeed, South Korean human rights scholar Dong Choon Kim, writing of
the U.S. war in Korea (1950-1953) - a war which he opines was at
least arguably genocidal - explains that even back then, the
nation-building of Third World peoples was viewed as an act of
subversion which had to be snuffed out.
As he explained,
American government interpreted the aspiration for building an
independent nation as an exclusive 'communist conspiracy,' and thus
took responsibility for killing innocent people, as in the case of
[the] My Lai incident in Vietnam." 
Thanks to the U.S. war on
Korea, Korea to this day remains a country divided in half, with no
prospects for unification anytime soon.
Kim explains that the Korean
"was a bridge to
connect the old type of massacres under colonialism and the new
types of state terrorism and political massacre during the Cold
And the mass killings
committed by US soldiers in the Korean War marked the inception
of military interventions by the US in the Third World at the
cost of enormous civilian deaths."
Similarly, the U.S. objective in Vietnam was the destruction of any
prospect of an intact, independent state from being created.
Jean-Paul Sartre wrote as part of the International War Crimes
Tribunal that he and Bertrand Russell chaired after the war, the
U.S. gave the Vietnamese a stark choice:
either accept capitulation
in which the country would be severed in half, with one half run by
a U.S. client, or be subjected to near total annihilation. 
Sartre wrote that, even in the former case, in which there would be
"cutting in two of a sovereign state... [t]he national unit of
'Vietnam' would not be physically eliminated, but it would no
longer exist economically, politically or culturally."
Of course, in the latter
case, Vietnam would suffer physical elimination:
bombed "back to the Stone Age" as the U.S. threatened...
As we know, the
Vietnamese did not capitulate, and therefore suffered near-total
destruction of their country
at the hands of the United States.
Meanwhile, for good measure, the U.S. simultaneously bombed both
Cambodia and Laos back to the Stone Age as well.
To understand the purpose behind such violent and destructive
actions, we need look no farther than the U.S.'s own post-WWII
policy statements, as well articulated by George Kennan serving as
the State Department's Director of Policy Planning in 1948:
We must be very careful when we speak of exercising
We are deceiving ourselves and others when we pretend to have
answers to the problems, which agitate many of these Asiatic
peoples. Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but
only 6.3 of its population.
This disparity is particularly great as
between ourselves and the peoples of Asia.
In this situation, we
cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task
in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which
will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without
positive detriment to our national security.
To do so we will have
to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming; and our
attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate
We need not deceive ourselves that we can
afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction…
In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now
with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking
with regard to the Far East.
We should dispense with the aspiration
to 'be liked' or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded
We should stop putting ourselves in the
position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering
moral and ideological advice.
We should cease to talk about vague
- and for the Far East - unreal objectives such as human rights, the
raising of the living standards, and democratization.
The day is not
far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power
concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans, the
While it would have been impossible for the U.S. to continue to
monopolize a full half of the world's wealth after Europe, Japan,
China and the USSR inevitably got up upon their feet after WWII, the
U.S. has nonetheless done an amazing job of controlling an
unjustifiable and disproportionate amount of the world's resources.
Thus, currently, the U.S. has about 5% of the world's population,
and consumes about 25% of its resources.
An article in Scientific
American, citing the
Sierra Club's Dave Tilford, explains that,
"'[w]ith less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses
one-third of the world's paper, a quarter of the world's oil, 23
percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of
Our per capita use of energy, metals, minerals,
forest products, fish, grains, meat, and even fresh water dwarfs
that of people living in the developing world'." 
The only way the U.S. has been able to achieve this impressive,
though morally reprehensible, feat has been to undermine, many times
fatally, the ability of independent states to exist, defend
themselves and to protect their own resources from foreign plunder.
This is why the U.S. has teamed up with the world's
forces in destroying independent states around the globe.
Just to name a few examples,
since 1996, the U.S. has supported
Rwandan and Ugandan forces in invading the Democratic Republic of
Congo, making that country ungovernable and plundering its
incredible natural resources.
The fact that around 6 million
innocents have been murdered in the process is of no matter, and
certainly not to the main stream press which rarely mentions the
In Colombia, the U.S. has backed a repressive military and
right-wing paramilitaries for decades in destabilizing whole swaths
of the Colombian countryside, and in assisting multinational
corporations, and especially extractive industries, in displacing
around 7 million people from their homes and land, all in order to
exploit Colombia's vast oil, coal and gold reserves.
receives barely a word in the mainstream press.
Of course, in the Middle East, Northern Africa and Afghanistan, the
U.S. has been teaming up with Saudi Arabia and radical Islamist
forces - forces the U.S. itself has dubbed "terrorist" - in
undermining and destroying secular states.
As far back as the 1970's, the U.S. began supporting the mujahidin
in attacking the secular, Marxist state of Afghanistan in order to
destroy that state and also to fatally weaken the Soviet state by,
in the words of
"drawing the Russians into the
Afghan trap... [and] giving to the USSR its Vietnam war."
Afghanistan may never recover from the devastation wrought by that
fateful decision of the U.S. and its subsequent intervention which
is now into its 15th year and counting...
As we know full well, the
USSR never recovered either, and the U.S. is trying mightily to
prevent post-Soviet Russia from becoming a strong rival state again.
Meanwhile, in Libya, the U.S. again partnered with jihadists in 2011
in overthrowing and indeed smashing a state which used its oil
wealth to guarantee the best living standards of any country in
Africa while assisting independence struggles around the world.
this way, Libya, which under Qaddafi also happened to be one of the
staunchest enemies of Al-Qaeda in the world, presented a double
threat to U.S. foreign policy aims.
Post-intervention Libya is now a
failed state with little prospects of being able to secure its oil
wealth for its own people again, much less for any other peoples in
the Third World.
And so, mission accomplished...!
In addition, as we learned from Seymour Hersh back in 2007, the U.S.
began at that time to try to weaken Iran and Syria by supporting
Sunni extremist groups to subvert those countries. 
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush
Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities
in the Middle East.
In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated
with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine
operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite
organization that is backed by Iran.
The U.S. has also taken part in
clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria.
by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni
extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are
hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most
of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come
from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites.
The U.S. continues to intervene in Syria in a way which prevents the
Syrian state from achieving a decisive victory against the various
militant groups it is fighting - some of which the U.S. itself
admits are terrorists - while at the same time targeting some of
these same militant groups themselves, thereby preventing either
side of the conflict from coming out on top.
Indeed, as we have
learned, the CIA and the Pentagon have even been backing opposing
militant groups that are fighting each other! 
The result is a
drawn-out war which threatens to leave Syria in chaos and ruins for
the foreseeable future.
This would seem to be an insane course of action for the U.S. to
take, and indeed it is, but there is method to the madness.
appears to be intentionally spreading chaos throughout strategic
portions of the world; leaving virtually no independent state
standing to protect their resources, especially oil, from Western
And, this goal is being achieved with resounding
success, while also achieving the subsidiary goal of enriching
behemoth industrial-military complex.
Jose Marti once said,
"there are two kinds of people in the world:
those who love and create, and those who hate and destroy."
no doubt that the U.S. has proven itself to be of the latter kind:
indeed, the very nature of U.S. foreign policy is
this, it is at best foolish and naïve for people of any political
stripe, but particularly self-defined leftists, to put any stock in
the notion that the U.S. is acting in the defense of human rights,
democracy or any such lofty goals in intervening militarily abroad.
There is only one proper goal, then, of people of good will:
oppose U.S. military intervention with every fiber of our being...