Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Middle East and Central Asia
US Military Expansion and Intervention
Also See GPF's Pages on:
US Military Expansion and Intervention
The Perils of Empire (April 20, 2003)
The British 20th century imperialism and the US neo-conservatives’ expansionist policy of today are strikingly similar. The British too, wanted to diminish French, Russian and German influence in the region. They sought secure access to Middle East oil, and to establish military bases. (Washington Post)US Weighs Stepped-Up Military Forays into Pakistan (August 8, 2008)
Top US officials want President Bush to step up military operations against armed tribal groups along the Afghan-Pakistani border. The US faces time pressure to pursue these militants as Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a chief US ally who condones US military intervention, faces possible impeachment. Some US defense officials fear an increase in military operations would alienate new Pakistani officials, who would then disallow the US from using Pakistan as a base to redeploy troops to Afghanistan. (Associated Press)Imperialism 101 (September 17, 2006)
This ZNet article chronicles US imperial intervention in the affairs of other countries. The Bush administration has taken these tendencies to great lengths, engaging in preventative wars when it claims a “perceived threat” to US national security exists. The article concludes that throughout a great portion of history, US governments have implemented regime changes abroad under the guise of spreading democracy. They have done so through diplomacy, bribing and giving money to the opposition, covertly assassinating leaders or engaging in war.Casual Imperialism (August 16, 2003)
Professor Vijay Prashad compares British colonialism in India to the current US occupation of Iraq. He concludes that the US occupation constitutes a “casual” form of imperialism, a type of indirect colonialism. (People's Weekly World)Imperial History Repeats Itself (July 3, 2003)
Post-war US troops in Iraq remain vulnerable to attacks by people struggling under foreign rule. Washington’s solution resembles that of London’s at the beginning of the 20th century: call for reinforcements from other countries that did not take part in the attack. (Guardian)
