I would argue that during the cold war and after, the US goals and strategy were and still are neocolonial, but the purposes for being neocolonial changed. In the cold war, the plan was to prevent any nuclear detonation from either side and win by attrition of sorts. Not of troop numbers but by having a country more dedicated to its way of life and capable of sustaining itself long term, this was evident when the Soviet Union bankrupted itself and collapsed. Neocolonialism makes a lot of sense. You get to control other people with minimal military involvement compared to keeping a standing military force typically needed in each controlled country. A neocolonial nation can reap the benefits economically, but at the same time not having serious
…show more content…
We have always said that we promote democracy around the world but the real reason is to support stability so long as nothing that country does is very bad. When other nations that can be a problem to us are stable, their problems usually stay there. When that country starts to bring their problems to our homeland and those of our allies, then we’ll intervene, create democracy and stay for a while. The strategy after the cold war in the Mena was to enter countries that had some terrorists, but also oil and use the fear of further extremism to justify presence. An example here is invading Iraq in 2003. Suspected terrorists and WMDs were in Iraq, we invaded, eventually captured Saddam Hussein, and defeated his military support along with the al-Qaida presence. Then we stuck around for a while setting up a new government and guarding oil fields. We did a similar thing in the 90s in Kuwait. Sadaam was drilling into Kuwaiti oil reserves, invaded Kuwait and decided that Kuwait was now part of Iraq. Iraq was looking like it wanted to take a bigger role, almost the head role in the region. The US wasn’t going to allow this so we invaded Kuwait, kicked out Saddams forces and secured oil sites. Kuwait was taken over by a superior military force, they took some of the oil and to the world it seemed Kuwait was occupied by the
We have always said that we promote democracy around the world but the real reason is to support stability so long as nothing that country does is very bad. When other nations that can be a problem to us are stable, their problems usually stay there. When that country starts to bring their problems to our homeland and those of our allies, then we’ll intervene, create democracy and stay for a while. The strategy after the cold war in the Mena was to enter countries that had some terrorists, but also oil and use the fear of further extremism to justify presence. An example here is invading Iraq in 2003. Suspected terrorists and WMDs were in Iraq, we invaded, eventually captured Saddam Hussein, and defeated his military support along with the al-Qaida presence. Then we stuck around for a while setting up a new government and guarding oil fields. We did a similar thing in the 90s in Kuwait. Sadaam was drilling into Kuwaiti oil reserves, invaded Kuwait and decided that Kuwait was now part of Iraq. Iraq was looking like it wanted to take a bigger role, almost the head role in the region. The US wasn’t going to allow this so we invaded Kuwait, kicked out Saddams forces and secured oil sites. Kuwait was taken over by a superior military force, they took some of the oil and to the world it seemed Kuwait was occupied by the