A clear viewpoint.
Two small tweaks -
The US is not at war with ALL the world's poor, only those who are sitting on significant resources. I don't see much US interest in Bangladesh.
Usually countries with small populations relative to large resources fit into what we might call the "market based Neo colonial" system pretty well. Examples would be Chile, Namibia, Iceland, the Emirates and smaller Persian Gulf States.
Kuwait is great example.
These countries need capital and expertise to exploit their own resources, and there is enough wealth for both local population and outside investors to benefit. Often they need some sort of military umbrella also.
Larger countries which want more control of their destiny or want to industrialize are more of a problem. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Bolivia, Indonesia, Pakistan, parts of Nigeria, etc.
Note that carving a Kurdistan out of Iraq creates a much better situation for the US and the Kurds....
We should also note that many countries try to avoid these traps, Algeria, Tunisa, Uraguay, Mozmbique, Malaysia, Thailand, and the biggest non-aligned nation, India.
*************************
Your second major point is true -
>>>In my view, the US population would eagerly embrace a clearly and accurately defined manichean agenda (spiced with appropriately religious, nationalist undertones), and we could proceed -- with clear and unfettered conscience -- with the task of carving a bloody path through the Middle East (and North Africa).* <<<
Already did - The US conducted a war against the "Native Americans - Indians" from before independence until about 1903, ending with the Modoc Indian War.
The major US objective that was lost was the chance to grab most of Western Canada. |
