I Know Which Country The U.S. Will Invade Next
Above Photo: A U.S. Army soldier on patrol in Iraq in 2008. (Sgt. Timothy Kingston, U.S. Army / Wikimedia)
By the end of this column, it will be clear which country the United States will invade and topple next. Or failing that, it will be clear which country our military-intelligence-industrial complex will be aching to invade next.
We all want to know why America does what it does. And I don’t mean why Americans do what we do. I think that question still will be pondered eons from now by a future professor showing his students a video mind-meld of present-day UFC fighters booting each other in the head while thrilled onlookers cheer (not for either of the fighters but rather for more booting in the head).
But we all seem to assume that America—the entity, the corporation—has some sort of larger reasoning behind the actions it takes, the actions put forward by the ruling elite. And almost all of us know that the reasons we’re given by the press secretaries and caricature-shaped heads on the nightly news are the ripest, most fetid grade of bullshit.
We now know that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We now know that the crushing of Libya had nothing to do with “stopping a bad man.” If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you’ll find that the U.S. doesn’t care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they’re using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or to harmonize their rock garden. In fact, the U.S. gives military aid to 70 percent of the world’s dictators. (One would hope that’s only around the holidays though.)
So if it’s not for the stated reasons, why does the U.S. overrun, topple and sometimes occupy the countries it does? Obviously, there are oil resources or rare minerals to be had. But there’s something else that links almost all of our recent wars.
As The Guardian reported near the beginning of the Iraq War, “In October 2000, Iraq insisted on dumping the U.S. dollar—the currency of the enemy—for the more multilateral euro.”
However, one example does not make a trend. If it did, I would be a world-renowned beer pong champion rather than touting a 1-27 record. (I certainly can’t go pro with those numbers.)
But there’s more. Soon after Libya began moving toward an African gold-based currency—and lining up all its African neighbors to join it—we invaded it as well, with the help of NATO. Author Ellen Brown pointed this out at the time of the invasion:
[Moammar Gadhafi] initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar.
John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” also has said that the true reason for the attack on Libya was Gadhafi’s move away from the dollar and the euro.
This week, The Intercept reported that the ousting of Gadhafi, which was in many ways led by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, actually had to do with Sarkozy secretly receiving millions from Gadhafi, and it seemed that his corruption was about to be revealed. But, the article also noted, “[Sarkozy’s] real military zeal and desire for regime change came only after [Hillary] Clinton and the Arab League broadcasted their desire to see [Gadhafi] go.” And the fact that Gadhafi was planning to upend the petrodollar in Africa certainly provides the motivation necessary. (It doesn’t take much to get the U.S. excited about a new bombing campaign. I’m pretty sure we invaded Madagascar once in the 1970s because they smoked our good weed.)
Right now you may be thinking, “But, Lee, your theory is ridiculous. If these invasions were about the banking, then the rebels in Libya—getting help from NATO and the United States—would have set up a new banking system after bringing down Gadhafi.”
Actually, they didn’t wait that long. In the middle of the brutal war, the Libyan rebels formed their own central bank.