Larssen wrote:
Afghanistan was hardly a case of oppressor interference. Kuwait was hardly unjustified. I believe you'd also do well to place previous ventures in the context of the cold war. The longer ago it is, the less we seem able to empathise with and understand the sentiments of the time, or the interests at stake.
This is not to absolve parties from blame, rather an appeal to see things within their complete context instead of regurgitating chomskyisms.
Invading Afghanistan was a terrible policy decision, but Afghanis aren't exactly flying over to the US and bombing buildings, are they? I think there was a mastermind behind those attacks, and his motivation was well-known, but hey, that's all just conveniently forgotten in this discussion, right?
The US supported the Baathist regime in Iraq up until the invasion of Kuwait. The US even told Saddam to go ahead and attack Kuwait, and that we wouldn't intervene, because of #policy goals!
The military interventions into Central and South America were ok because of domino theory? Why do we have the term Banana Republic if it's really all about stopping communism? Viewing US intervention in the western hemisphere through the lens of the Cold War erases almost 100 years of colonialism in Latin America that predates the Cold War. Funny how we called them Banana Republics instead of successful capitalist societies then, yeah?
Yes, let's put these into context. That's precisely what I'm doing, after all.
As long as people like you want to put forward these theories that everything needs to be looked at in the context of stated policy goals without factoring in background motives and actual results, I will continue to "regurgitate chomskyisms". FYI Chomsky doesn't hold a monopoly on criticizing western foreign policy goals, but he's probably the only one familiar to you because you stopped reading critiques of western policy when you finished your education.