Foreign involvement in a civil war is nothing new.
Most recently it seems that Libya, Egypt, Syria and the Ukraine have been playgrounds for our State Department. We pick a side in the civil war and then support it, both overtly through the mainstream media (usually Sunday morning talk shows) and covertly with CIA tactical support and military industrial hardware.
Our justification is usually that the bad guys, those we aren’t supporting, would do more harm than good to the poor people by staying in power, therefore, in most recent times, a regime change was necessary.
Click here to get Bill's new book:
44th A Presidential Conspiracy
Problems arise when the weapons of one group that we are supporting somehow find their way into the hands of a group that we are trying to eliminate.
It makes for a very confusing situation when we are involved in many civil wars at the same time. No wonder our State Department has doubled its strategy section in the past few years.
Unless we think our involvement is something new we only have to recall our own Civil War in the 1860’s. In mid 1862 France, England and Spain saw an opportunity with the War Between the States. France alone sent 35,000 troops to Mexico. England sent most of its troops to what is now called Canada. Spain also involved itself by refortifying garrisons still maintained in Mexico. Not to be out done, Russia positioned ships off both the East and West coast of the embattled United States. All were looking to take advantage of the turmoil created by the secessionists.
Should the North lose, the British were sent to reclaim much of the land left several years before. France and Spain were set to reclaim the Southwest regardless of the outcome. European events, however, forced all to give up their claims in North America. However, one wonders if each of these countries had been as aggressive as we are in intervening in multiple civil wars, in interfering in our civil war, what America would look like today?
Most Americans would say it was our people, our argument, our war and foreign intervention would have been disastrous. It was
OUR’S AND OUR’S ALONE.
Would the people of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, if asked today say anything different? Shouldn’t it be
THEIR’S AND THEIR’S ALONE.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member