The secretary of defense Lloyd Austin, the chair of the joint chiefs of staff of the US military general Mark Milley, and the head of the US Central Command general Frank McKenzie have all been trying to explain the reasons for the debacle in Afghanistan, not just the final chaotic withdrawal but the failure of the entire two-decade long nation building enterprise and the inability to defeat the Taliban despite pouring vast amounts of money into the Afghan military and providing all manner of material, training, and air support. When the USSR was the occupier of that country, the US government was providing covert support to the then-Mujahideen to undermine the Soviet-backed government but there is no evidence that any outside power, Russia or any other country, was providing anything like significant support for the Taliban in its fight against the US.
So now what? The American public had long been weary of the Afghan military involvement, which is likely why Donald Trump and Joe Biden decided to end it. But while Trump bowed to his military at the last minute and did not pull out all the troops as he had wanted to, Biden went ahead and did it, despite the advice he got from them to keep some there.
There is no question that this defeat will result in the American public being wary of any new wars, at least for a while. This will be a major problem for the military-industrial-warmongering class that depends on perpetual wars in order to keep the gusher of money flowing their way. I have not seen the term used as yet, but we can call the current feeling of the American public to oppose new wars the ‘Afghanistan syndrome’, in analogy to the ‘Vietnam syndrome’ that followed the ignominious defeat of the US military in that country. Older readers may recall that at that time, the warmongers were fretting about their inability to wield American military might as and when they wanted to. They feel that the US needs to periodically have a massive display of its military force to show the world who is the boss.
They managed to overcome the Vietnam syndrome by creating easy military wins by invading much smaller countries. Remember Grenada? The US invaded this tiny country of about 135 square miles and population of 110,000 in 1983, with then-president Ronald Reagan expressing his concern that Cuba was aiding that country’s government in building an airstrip, presumably to threaten the US by using it to aid left-wing governments in the region. The utter preposterousness of this claim did not prevent the US from invading that country to much acclaim. The pliant media of course went along. The US awarded more medals for that operation than the number of soldiers who actually took part in it, many who were in the US or remained offshore during the entire time. The next stage in combating the Vietnam syndrome was the invasion of a larger country in Panama in 1990 that lasted a month and resulted in the capture of its then leader Manuel Noriega.
Having made the US public feel good about going to war again, they then invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, with disastrous results.
So the question now is: Which hapless small country or countries is going to be targeted to once again provide the US military with easy victories in order to remove the taste of defeat from the public’s mouths? Which small country is going to serve as the next Grenada to overcome the Afghanistan syndrome?
Luxembourg? Nah. Right size but too white. The US government will probably choose another small country with people of color that most Americans have never heard of, so that they will believe the cock-and-bull story that is made up to justify the invasion.
Or maybe they will simply invade Grenada again, since it worked so well for them the last time.
Haiti, so that all those poor people-of-color will stop trying to invade the US.
Well, there’s Pakistan — from what I’ve heard they backed the Taliban pretty heavily. But yeah, that’s not quite on the level of Russia.
Which the Taliban now own and can use to cement their grip on the nation. Good job, USA.
I give it less than ten years, and probably some tiny Latin American nation.
No sane government would voluntarily thrust themselves into Haitian politics.
So, I guess Haiti it is then.
More seriously, it will be a Latin American country (after all we still believe in the Monroe Doctrine). It will need to be someplace close, fairly small, and not filled with inaccessible mountains for rebel bases. It will have to have beaches (the Marine Core will insist on that). That means Bolivia and Paraguay are safe. It should be a country people have vaguely heard of, so Suriname is probably safe. Both Mexico and Brazil are too important for US business interests to be targets. The drug lords in Colombia could probably outgun an invasion, and that would be rather ignominious.
I’d guess Guatemala. We just need another wave of Guatemalan refugees trying to cross the border from Mexico to have an casus belli.
Or Haiti. Haiti would be a huge mistake, so I can’t rule that out.
I didn’t mean to spell “Corps” that way. Oh well.
OMG, I had already thought literally all of these things, exactly as you’d written them, save that bit about the Marine Corps. Couldn’t be landlocked. Would have to be closer to home than Afghanistan. Would almost certainly be in Latin America. Monroe Doctrine. Brazil & Mexico. All of it. Although I’d also thought of one other thing: we won’t be invading any country with active colonial relationships to any other nuclear power, so French Guyana is out, as are various Caribbean islands beholden to the UK or Spain, and, of course, Cuba, which has a relationship that’s not exactly colonial, but not exactly mere friendship with Russia. We would love to invade Cuba, but we won’t, because Russia.
Guatemala isn’t a bad guess. It’s not Costa Rica. Belize doesn’t have the same relationship to the UK as, say, the British Virgin Islands, but as a UK Commonwealth nation I think the US would avoid it. Invading Belize is Boris Johnson’s job.
So… the way I see it, we’ve got the island nations, which are definitely possibilities (Grenada after all) but I don’t think they serve the long term money making needs of the war profiteers. Seriously, how many missiles can you justify selling to the Pentagon to take out Barbados?
So… Guatemala, justified on the basis of a “migrant crisis” or… wait for it …Venezuela. Ultimately it might come down to whether the Pentagon & the war profiteers WANT the mess of Venezuela because it means a longer, more violent, and thus more profitable occupation, or whether they want an easier “victory” to shore up their manhoods after Afghanistan.
I do leave El Salvador & Nicaragua on the table, but consider them less likely than either Guatemala or Venezuela. Any small island nations are third tier targets which are technically possible, but I dismiss as highly unlikely. I mean, sure, we could invade St. Kitts & Nevis, but come on. There’s no glory or money there.
Anyway, this is all interesting (if morbid) speculation. I don’t trust the US government to keep itself from invading other countries for more than 6 years at a time. Even a single 4 year administration is a bit lengthy for reasonable expectations. So we will invade somewhere, and where we invade is relatively predictable.
What’s really random is what month of what year? Will it be an election year? Early or late? There could be some good betting there.
Are we really sure that we can rule out Rhode Island?
I mean, I know it’s very white. On the other hand, “co-op” is perilously close to “coup,” so I bet they could figure out a way to spin it. Also, it’s totally defenseless, making it an ideal target.
@4 Flex: “That means Bolivia and Paraguay are safe.”
French Guyana, Suriname and Guyana as well. The few beaches they have are far from the populated areas.
French Guyana also has the problem of being French.
Ack. Borked the quote. Obviously that first paragraph is copied from Flex.
[I corrected it -- Mano]
@4 Flex: a fun fact is that the Reagan administration actually had planned an invasion of Suriname in the 1980’s. It got vetoed by the Dutch minister of foreign affairs Hans van Mierlo. Suriname was a military dictature back then; such an invasion had a pretty good chance of getting the support of the Surinamese population.
I think there are lots of options already on the table, and it’s good to remember that it hasn’t generally been a requirement that what they’re going to do should make a lot of sense (strategically or otherwise).
Also, for those interested, Al Jazeera recently gave a nice summary of our current/recent military operations, with lots of informative graphics.
Safe from a full-scale invasion, probably. All of the other shit the military and CIA do, not so much.
Only slightly tongue in cheek, as a Canadian I worry about the coming US invasion. We have lots oil, which is useful. We have lots of water, which is vital. And we have a socialized medical system that must be a thorn in the side of the capitalist power. Heck, we have even granted asylum to a few people who helped Edward Snowden avoid US clutches. What greater excuse does the US need?
Your country’s elites and its government are still licking the boots of ours and supporting its crusades. As soon as that subsides, even just a little….
Sometimes I wonder how long it will take for an alliance of European countries, Canada, Mexico, Australia, etc. to decide that the US is a failed state that needs to be invaded, for the purposes of democratization and ending its global reign of terror. I mean, it would be unimaginably horrific, yes. But how many war crimes and human rights violations do you people fucking need, before you start considering it?
Half (but only half) joking: Puerto Rico. Tiny, defenceless against USA because USA already conquered it, and lots of beaches.
@consciousness razor:
Considering AUKUS, the recent US/UK/Australia security deal, means that Australia will be getting US nuclear submarines, I doubt that Australia is going to do anything about the U.S. anytime soon. On the other hand, the fact that this deal explicitly left out both Canada and New Zealand, the other two members of the ‘Five Eyes’, has already caused some consternation up here, and that’s on top of France and a number of other allies being less than happy with it.
Which hapless small country or countries is going to be targeted to once again …
Y’all overlook a key factor of which I suspect the Pentagon is strongly aware: Many US troops already known Spanish fluently, and many of the others would find it easy to learn (at least as compared to Vietnamese, Pushtun, Arabic, etc).
So, even those initially persuaded by whatever excuses the spin doctors concoct for (yet another) US invasion will soon hear the locals’ version(s), and more than a few will sympathize. As ever (in the last 76 years), a US invasion of just about anywhere in Latin America will be a cakewalk in military terms -- but occupation will be a bitter quagmire.
The generals probably mostly understand this; the politicians, not so much.
consciousness razor #13; “Sometimes I wonder how long it will take for an alliance of European countries, Canada, Mexico, Australia, etc. to decide that the US is a failed state that needs to be invaded”
Australia is the U.S’s submissive bitch, desperate to be deputised by their dom because they’re scared shitless of the yellow peril and also want to be the great white hope this side of the Pacific. They’re pathetic that way, so don’t imagine they’ll ever be on a side opposing the U.S in any meaningful way.
jenorafeuer #15; “On the other hand, the fact that this deal explicitly left out both Canada and New Zealand”
A deal involving nuclear powered warships could never have included New Zealand, so we don’t feel any insult in not being invited to it.
Speaking as a European, I doubt Europe would mobilize against the US this side of a nuclear exchange.
One might note that EUROPE has quite a history of war crimes itself. Including the French Secret Service and Mitterrand’s fun little adventure in Rwanda. And don’t forget that the lovely Libyan disaster was at least partially at the urging of our oh so pious European allies. So, enough with the smugness, folks. I am no nationalist, but the Europeans INVENTED genocide and colonial wars.
/eyeroll
No they didn’t. Humanity in general has been doing those things for the entire history of every region of human occupation.
It won’t be Nicaragua after China’s plans for a second canal were shelved. More likely is some small island nation or an east African country. China is trying to copy the US and build overseas military bases, including Djibouti, Cambodia, and elsewhere, mostly around the Indian Ocean. The PRC is trying to pressure Sri Lanka too, but relations with India make that unlikely.
The most immediate and available target of US ambitions and “feel better after being kicked down *again* by a smaller opponent” machinations is Jamaica.
https://jis.gov.jm/jdf-gets-300-million-in-military-equipment-from-china-2/
Another point to consider: It would be wise to go for a country that already has a militant opposition that could be inserted as a puppet, a la Chile. That way, a further commitment to long-term occupation would be unnecessary. Just go in, overthrow the government, put your puppet in place, declare victory and go home.
Granada--apparently a close-run thing with one officer using his goverment-issue credit-card to call the Pentagon about a problem. And IIRC Granada has an area about the size of Cleveland, Ohio.
@1 johnson catman
Haiti?
That is so passé. The USA has been invading it for over 100 years.
@ 3 Holms
…despite pouring vast amounts of money into the Afghan military and providing all manner of material, training, and air support.
Which the Taliban now own and can use to cement their grip on the nation. Good job, USA.
Not really. I have heard that the most successful Afghanistan development projects can be seen in Northern Virginia and Maryland. Most of the money never really left the USA.
@ 6 Crip Dyke
French Guyana is out
It bloody well should be. As mnb0 points out it is French Guyana
French Guyana is an overseas department of France (DOM--département d’outre-mer ). French citizens there have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as a citizen in Paris or Lyon. Invading it would be an act of war against France. Oh, and I just remembered, that is where the French Army does its tropical/jungle training.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departments_of_France#/media/File:France_d%C3%A9partementale.svg
@ 12 pwdm
Our main advantages are several million ex-pats in the USA who might think about throwing sand in the gears; an ability to cut off a lot of Hydro to New York and an ability to blend in well with the enemy as long as we are careful with the “aboots” Oh and due to a lot of interaction our military probably knows more about the US military than the US Military knows.
BTW Camp Drum?
@ 15 jenorafeuer
the fact that this deal explicitly left out both Canada and New Zealand, the other two members of the ‘Five Eyes’, has already caused some consternation up here
It has? I have not seen anything in the press and rather thought that the Gov’t was thinking “There but for the grace of God go I’.
OTOH, while I give the PM a good rating on domestic affairs he is horrible on foreign affairs.
#23 jrkrideau
I’m not sure what you mean. Are those the locations of the defence contractor companies perhaps?
Just to add to the arguments against picking French Guiana as a target: It also happens to be the site of Guiana Space Centre, the European spaceport. So an invasion would also be a great way of antagonising not just France, but every member state of the European Space Agency.
Then again, razing the launch site because something-something terrorists-might-use-it handwave-waffle could be a boon to the US launch(er) industry (there aren’t many alternatives) so… hmmm. Of course, it might also accelerate efforts to set up launch sites in and around continental Europe, getting them more business and indepence from the US. But the whole point of any military exercise is for the US to shoot itself in the foot for short-term gains, so that’d be fine.