« Save Larry Craig - Day Two | Main | Fred Thompson Announces He's an Idiot »

The U.S.Still Viewed As A Colonialist Power In Much Of The Developing World

It still has not dawned on the Bush White House, nor many supporters of the Iraq War, that despite whatever good intentions of the U.S. may have had in Iraq, that the U.S. only breeds its own continued opposition in the developing world by being viewed as an interventionist "colonialist" type power in the affairs of the Developing nations.

While modern terrorism is a complex problem for the Western world, it still represents a type of radical reaction by extremists against Western influence, and the U.S. only seems to breed more of it when it attempts to stomp it out. How to effectively counter it is a very difficult question. But it may be easier to understand what tends to fuel the problem.

Since 1961, as many as eight million persons have died in conflicts in Developing world nations as a direct result of U.S. military action, or by the use of U.S. backed surrogates with CIA support or other military backing by the U.S.

Vietnam was essentially a civil war to reunite the nation by Viet Minh Independence movement leader, Ho Chi Minh, a former U.S. ally during WWII, in which U.S. and Viet Minh fighters fought side by side to defeat the Japanese invaders. In the 1950's, the Viet Minh turned their actions against the French and finally the Americans during the 1960's when both Western nations sought to intervene and arrange Vietnam in their own design, rather than some self-design of the Vietnamese.

When the Berlin Wall fell in the late 80's, many in the world expected a new world order to take shape. But the Reagan administration quickly moved against Panama. Washington soon became politically involved in Albania and Bulgaria to replace those governments. Nicaragua became a CIA battleground for U.S. intervention to undermine another government Washington disliked. And there was eventual U.S. military action in Somalia. U.S. intervention in Yugoslavia later followed and finally the 2003 war in Iraq as well.

While many in the Developing world may tend to choose bad governments, and significant loss of human life or cruelty often results, the result of U.S. action in a state often only inspires a anti-U.S. reaction, and more anger in the Developing world. In Iraq, like a magnet, anti-U.S. elements from all over the Muslim world have been drawn to counter the U.S. role in that nation.

The problem is that the U.S. can always justify it's actions in some desolate land in the name of some "humanitarian" reason, when it is often the mineral assets of that nation that only make it really all that important to the U.S., and the persons whose lives are directly impacted in those nations only see the U.S. as acting just like the old time colonial regimes from Britain, Spain or France of the past.

In Iraq, so many nations are involved, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and the U.S. and Britain, that many persons there cannot help but feel that their nation is little more than some international political football. Many simply want all foreign nations out, fueling both domestic anger and a continued insurgency and terrorism. How to break this cycle is the difficult question.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.4/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.4/5 (5 votes cast)

Comments (7)


interesting post, paul. i don't agree with your assessment in the least. for instance, you only give lip service to the effect that the local government has to terrorism and conflict. that's just one issue i have with what you wrote.

i don't really want to argue nuts and bolts, paul, because it is quite obvious that we do not view the world in the same way. i would, however, like to say that I appreciate the fact that you seem to have given it some thought and have presented your opinion in a civilized way.

don't get me wrong, i still think that you are naive and mistaken in both your starting assumptions and your logic. but at least we can agree to disagree. which is a step in the right direction.


And as long as we are using the "upwards" description of killing--Communism has killed upwards of 80-100,000,000 million people--including some of my own relatives.

The ending of US involvement in Vietnam resulted in the killing/dieing will escaping (boat peoples) upwards of 5000,000 and upwards of 10%-20% of the population of Cambodia (very nice woman who worked for me years ago--we went to Alcatraz Island (company trip)--she related the "shower area" downstairs was almost identical to where she lived in Cambodia as a 6-8 year old--minus the blood on the walls and the smell.

A (Christian) Palestinian I worked with for many years believes that was the creation of the "Religious" state of Israel that created the Islamic Religious based states.

And, as far as I know, the Berlin wall did fall and a new order was created in Eastern Europe. Panama in the 1980's had little to no influence on the the progress in Europe.

There are lots to blame the US for--And even Republicans. To this day, Iranians (even US immigrants that are members of the Republican party) still hold the US to task for the establishment of the Pahlavi shah in Iran by the CIA and Eisenhower (Republican).

Today, even anti-war Democratic U.S. Rep. Brian Baird is having reservations about leaving too soon.

As I asked in an earlier post--how would you solve all of these problems...

Strong and steady leadership is a start (much of the current problems in Iraq were because Bush I did not follow through and the domestic arguments about Bush II polices in Iraq make people afraid to choose sides with the US as may the US will cut and run again). Being able to change course in the face of evidence that things are going bad is always a plus.

Lee Ward:

More diarrhea from our right-wing troll du juor. Your bullshit has already been debunked here, Bill. You're impressing no one.

have you been laughed out of the wright wing blogs? is that why you troll your off-topic crap here?


And what has been Debunked Mr. Lee?

Lee Ward:

Oh that's right, you don't read the posts here, you just troll the comment threads with your half-baked talking points.


Mr. Lee,

I responded directly to one of your posts about:

"Yoo's gross departure from sanity is predicated on the definition that 9/11 was an act of war - not a criminal act."

You choose not to discuss your own 1/2 baked talking points.

Doing a nice job of creating your own little KOS kingdom... Obviously, you are unprepared to discuss any of your ideas.

Lee Ward:

You responded to my comment about Yoo with this:

Again quoting a fact less quote. What is there to discuss.

"...discovered numerous legal positions which the administration had adopted (many created by Yoo) that he found baseless and even unconscionable -- from torture to detention powers to illegal surveillance -- and he repudiated many of them, thereby repeatedly infuriating the most powerful White House officials,"...

To quote Mr. Ward, "pffff!"

Good bye troll...


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.