So, we wonder, how would we characterize a nation that had invaded or intervened militarily in various other sovereign nations some 73 times in 55 years? Militaristic? Bellicose? Imperialist? Domineering? Brutal? Arrogant? Power-hungry? Ruthless? Pitiless? Hegemonic?
“Between World War II and the end of the last century, the United States led seventy-three military interventions throughout the world, almost double the total from the preceding fifty-five-year period.”
—Pilisuk, Marc (2008). Who benefits from global violence and war: Uncovering a destructive system. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International. (p. 2).
Ewps—that nation would be US. That raises even more questions.
But it also produces an opportunity.
We wonder, for instance,
- how to balance the budget? Um, stop spending ungodly sums on military intervention (almost a $billion just on Libya alone)?
- how to stop terrorism? Well, perhaps we could stop stepping on other people and enraging them?
- how to create jobs? Hey, if our military and military aid didn't suppress collective bargaining in Colombia, Indonesia, and many other nations, perhaps some of those jobs could begin to drift back to the US.
- how to create even more jobs? Duh. Stop spending our taxes on capital-intensive military contractors and spend instead on labor-intensive infrastructure, education, public works and feeding everyone.
- how to stop killing others and sending our young over 'there' to get killed? Does that even rise to the level of deserving a response? Just Say No to more intervention.
Once we listen instead of dictate—listen to the Global South and our own internal Global South, better known as the Occupy movement—we will get along, we will share this world more equally with everyone, we will find much more peace and we will find a new power we haven't felt, possibly ever before.
Pilisuk, Marc (2008). Who benefits from global violence and war: Uncovering a destructive system. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.