U.S. Global Interventions

US Interventionism as a Humanitarian Effort

Often, American interventions overseas begin as humanitarian efforts

When we entered Somalia in 1992, President Bush claimed that the mission was limited to “... open[ing] the supply routes, to get food moving, and the prepare the way for a U.N. peacekeeping force…”

In 1993 the US opened its mandate under President Clinton to use all necessary means to ensure peace, including the placement of US troops in Somalia. Only in 1995 after NATO dropped 1,026 bombs in its largest military effort thus far, was the war in Somalia ended.

When entering Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration used the guise of advancing women’s rights, citing various human rights violations as part of the reason it was so important for the US to become involved.

The Pentagon chief at the time estimated that US involvement in Iraq would not last more than 5 months, costing under 50 billion dollars. He was off by 1 trillion dollars and a decade.

Similarly, when beginning involvement in Libya, President Obama stated that the sole military mission was to protect the citizens of Benghazi, not to implement a regime change, and that the airstrikes would last “days, not weeks.”

Why does the US intervene?

Since 1980, the US has launched 13 interventions in the Islamic world alone, often reasoning that military intervention overseas is the only thing stopping the global threat of terrorism from growing.

However, over the past 2 decades Islamic radicalism has been on the rise.

In a report by Daniel Byman and Jeremy Shapiro on what seems to provoke terrorists in the Middle East, many of them cite fighting Western interventionism as a reason for their actions.

In a court deposition from 2007, Cherif Kouachi (one of the suspects in the Charlie Hebedo attacks in Paris) said that the source of his radicalization was seeing the “injustices” the US had inflicted upon the Iraqi people over the course of the war.

And yet, the solution Washington constantly gives for terrorist attacks motivated by US interventionism, is more military involvement overseas.

● So why does the US continue to involve itself with global interventions? Largely out of fear of attacks on American soil.

● In a 2007 interview, President Bush stated that “we fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” This is a sentiment echoed by many US lawmakers to this day. The idea that our overseas involvement is what stands between the United States and another terrorist attack like September 11th echoes throughout US foreign policy.

○ Even after the Paris attacks a few days ago, Senator John McCain stated that President Obama’s decision not to send more troops to Iraq would result in a similar attack in the US.

○ Thus, America’s perpetual state of war is seen a preventative measure, in order to ensure perpetual peace.

● Washington seems to use the American’s people fear for their own safety to justify its actions. In a 2015 poll by the Pew Research Center shows that Americans are just as afraid of terrorist attacks in the US as they were a month after 9/11 and defending the nation from further terrorist attacks is still what Americans believe should be the President’s top concern.

U.S. Military bases abroad

Interventions in Africa

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/15678

- Special Ops involved in 147 countries this year. 75% of all nations.

- involved in 47 African nations (out of 54)

- Cooperative Security Location (CSL) aka “lilly pads”

- Proxy Wars as preferred method of warfare on the African continent

- Diffusion of arms into unintended hands

tomdispatch.com

“They’re involved in Algeria and Angola, Benin and Botswana, Burkina Faso and Burundi, Cameroon and the Cape Verde Islands. And that’s just the ABCs of the situation. Skip to the end of the alphabet and the story remains the same: Senegal and the Seychelles, Togo and Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia. From north to south, east to west, the Horn of Africa to the Sahel, the heart of the continent to the islands off its coasts, the U.S. military is at work. Base construction, security cooperation engagements, training exercises, advisory deployments, special operations missions, and a growing logistics network, all undeniable evidence of expansion -- except at U.S. Africa Command.”

-Nick Turse

Drone Papers

Secret documents about the Haymaker Campaign in 2012

- 9 out of 10 people killed in these strikes were not the intended targets.

- labeled EKIAs

- assassination lists

- Firing blind - targeting signals instead of people

- Combating the “tyranny of distance”

theintercept.com

theintercept.com

Chabelley Airfield, Djibouti

April 2013

October 2013

March 2015

- Offshore Balancing. refusal to use ground forces

- The “new normal” post Benghazi

- An inflection point?

- Iran containment and threat of military intervention

- arms sales to Egypt, Israel, GCC

- Changing landscape - ‘new’ wars (Kaldor), hybrid wars (Hoffman), biopolitical wars (Evans)

Can we attribute globalization to changing strategies and shift in military posturing?

Status of Women in Conflict Zones

90% of war casualties are civilians, a majority of whom are women and children

100 years ago, 90% who lost their lives in war were military personnel

Plight of women and the impact of war on them have been ignored

Women remain underrepresented in decision-making forums related to conflict

In many conflict settings throughout the world, women continue to experience gender-targeted violence: rape, sexual slavery, murder, and many other human rights abuses

In general, conflicts exacerbate gender disparities, both in society at large and in families

2003 U.S. Invasion of Iraq

While Saddam Hussein was in power, women’s rights were at first very much alive

Iraqi women enjoyed a higher status in comparison to other MENA countries

U.S. officials declared that freeing the women of Iraq and building a more equal society was a prime cause to take action

Iraqi women initially hoped for a more diverse civil society and public dialogue

2003 U.S. Invasion of Iraq (cont.)

U.S. officials made comparisons to status of Afghan women and made very little differentiation

U.S. government worked with many pro-war Iraqi women’s rights organizations like “Women for a Free Iraq” to justify the invasion

implicate Saddam Hussein as the main threat to Iraqi women’s rights

Frequently ignored Iraqi anti-war activistsIran-Iraq war sanctions made daily life difficult for women

“Running just to stay in place”

Iraqi women inside the country and in diaspora began to organize themselves quickly, forming civil society groups

Female activists were threatened or outright targeted for assassination

increasing insecurity

“Voice without action”laws written to account for increased participation in government by women, but

little progress made

More effort put into maintaining existing rights1959 Personal Status Law

Disappearing from Public Life

Security situation unraveled and women forced out of public life

Iraqi women forced more towards black market as a source of income

Iraq war became a profitable opportunity for private security firms and government contractors

Disappearing from Public Life (cont.)

Introduction of neoliberal policies and mass privatizationIraq imports 80% of food from Jordan, Iran, and Gulf countries

Combined with increasingly volatile security, Iraqi women overwhelmingly without a job in the sectors that they had been previously well-represented in before 2003 (especially agriculture and professional sector)

Iraqi women forced more towards black market as a source of income

increases in rates of sexual violence, prostitution, forced sterilization/pregnancy

Violence has prevented women from fully participating in reconstruction

“...US policies have increased the daily burden of women ensuring their family’s day-to-day survival.”