Venezuela (2006-2018)

[JJackson]

Post 9/11 the US unilaterally changed the rules of the game, they had significant international sympathy - and the military/diplomatic/economic superpower status did not exactly encourage other states to be too vocal in their complaints. They significantly weakened their position on human rights (enhanced interrogation techniques, Gitmo etc.) and on the norms of international sovereignty (kidnapping foreign nationals in other countries AKA extraordinary rendition) and this week we have seen military strikes in Pakistan and Somalia (presumably by US forces).
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Having changed the rules others have taken the opportunity to jump on the band waggon. Now it is the 'new norm' for any tin pot nasty-piece-of-work who has control of their countries military - regardless of how they got there - to call anyone they want to get rid of a terrorist and massacre them. If that includes extremely repressive tactics (Russia vs Chechen's, IDF vs Lebanon) or forays into another country (Turkey/Iraq, Colombia/Ecuador) then the new rules say no problem - as long as you remember to call whoever you want to attack a terrorist.
If the US intends to make the rules and then enforce them then they must expect to have to face vastly increased opposition across the board; friends shift to neutral, neutral to hostile and hostile to terrorist.
Just my $.02

[Steve Blair]

But this is really nothing new. Blaming the US may be fashionable, but this has cropped up time and again in history. Call them reactionary stooges, counter-revolutionaries, Imperialist/Communist puppets...whatever. The tactic has always been there. Doesn't mean the US was wise in using it, but we certainly didn't invent it.

This seems more like Chavez trying to create some kind of internal unity after his defeat at the polls a few months back. And I think Columbia's wise to not provide any military provocation. Forces Chavez to show his true colors, if his intent is to actually commit forces and not just rattle his saber.

[Ken White]

Post 9/11 the US unilaterally changed the rules of the game, they had significant international sympathy...

While the rest of your comment has has elements of truth in it, the US has thrown its weight around internationally and unilaterally since 1795.

As did great Britain in the day -- and from whom we learned to be assertive -- as have numerous others over the years.

Nothing new here. Look at Ol' Fidel -- he and Che were throwing their weight around before all you young folks realized it and long before 9/11 -- about 40 years before. Go elsewhere in the world and there are myriad examples.

I really don't mind folks blaming the US for all the ills of the world but it would be nice if they'd get their facts straight.

[Ron Humphrey]

I really don't mind folks blaming the US for all the ills of the world but it would be nice if they'd get their facts straight.

why we need to keep you and yours around a while yet

[J Wolfsberger]

I really don't mind folks blaming the US for all the ills of the world but it would be nice if they'd get their facts straight.

I'd like to know where we're keeping the time machine that enables us to go back 5,000 or so years and bring all the evil into the world. After all, the world was a far better place before the U.S. came into existence.

[Norfolk]

Whenever I read about how the U.S. blew all this "international sympathy" that it had immediately after 9/11, I still have a hard time getting past the memories of all those newpapers and TV reports saying that it was just the U.S. getting what was coming to it. Between the various non-US news networks and some of the papers (not least a particular prominent French newspaper), while there was certainly a lot of sympathy, it was also the occasion when a lot of the haters lifted their veils briefly and came right out and gleefully kicked the victim while he was down.

My sister was working in her HR office that day, and as everyone watched the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers on live TV, one of the Bangladeshi-born software engineers was jumping up and down and laughing.

That day I tossed my carefully nurtured Canadian anti-American views out in the trash, forever. Every country has committed evils, some more than others, but for whatever its evils, past and present, the U.S. is not only one of the most benign imperial powers that has ever existed in modern times, but probably the most magnanimous - and utterly necessary to holding the line against worse evils in the world. Perhaps only Britain in its Imperial heyday even approaches the U.S. in these regards.

It is perverse to view the U.S. as the source of evil; what's more it is envy to want to see it as such, and to see it suffer for its alleged "crimes". Anyone can pick up a copy of a Black Rose Press book and read about the horrible things that America and Americans have done in places like Central America, etc. And a good deal of it is indeed true, and will anguish you in ways that you can't easily shake. But even then, that does not begin to approach the utter inhumanity of regimes like Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, or Maoist China - or the many "lesser" such examples as Cambodia or North Korea. Most of those who are willing to condemn the U.S. for its crimes - real, imagined, and exaggerated - have owed their place to do so in no small part to the blood, treasure, and sacrifice poured out by the U.S. in quantities that no other Western country is willing to bear in just proportion. Envy is at the root of most anti-Americanism.

It's not clear - yet - whether or not Colombia was justified in making an incursion into Ecuador or not. But if FARC and the "dirty bomb" bit, along with the alleged support of the Ecuadorian and Venezuelan Governments for FARC do indeed turn out to be true, then it's the latter, not Colombia, who have some 'splainin' to do. And so far, Colombia is doing the right thing, by apologizing for the incursion and playing it (comparatively) cool, and not making any quick (military) moves.

[Tom Odom]

My sister was working in her HR office that day, and as everyone watched the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers on live TV, one of the Bangladeshi-born software engineers was jumping up and down and laughing.

It was most surreal here as we were in a mission rehearsal exercise for the Balkans and some of our Muslim role players did the same.....considering the US role in that region, it was Twilight Zone stuff.

Tom

[JJackson]

Firstly an apology, I had just waded through the BBC international site and was seething from the unnecessary loss of life and general hatred in the days news. I then made two hasty and provocative posts which, on reflection, should have been toned down.
Sorry Steve and everyone else.

That said I would still disagree with Ken on 9/11 being a watershed in US policy. The birth of the GWOT was not the start of those with power throwing their weight around but it was a major change in policy focus and I would argue counter-productively. As to the Brits in days of empire I would not even consider trying defend some of their actions, opium, East India company etc. etc. I don’t know the origin of the term ‘Gunboat diplomacy’ but I have a nasty feeling we might have spawned it.

Take the missile strikes on Dhoble ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7276535.stm) this is not a town that is likely to have a lot of warm sentiment towards the US but the strikes seem to have stirred up a lot of anger over the civilian deaths. The target – according to press reports – seems to have been either Saleh Ali Nabhan ( suspected of involvement with Kenyan hotel bombing and manpad attack on airliner) or Hassan Turki (UIC & Ogaden) how good the intelligence was I obviously don’t know but there seem to have been hits on more than one site and no claim of any success. What is the net result likely to be? Have the planners been reading their COIN manuals? Newly bereaved relatives ripe for recruitment to the cause and a general shift of the population towards the anti-American end of the spectrum? This town is near the Kenyan boarder and the US is already blamed for supporting the Ethiopian invasion and attendant misery caused. The boarder was closed from the Kenyan side as soon as the Ethiopian invasion began, and remains so. This seems to have been a co-ordinated action between the US and its two local allies in an attempt to apprehend some wanted men thought to be in the area. Any senior UIC, or terrorists, in the area would have had their own bolt holes, safe houses and support networks those that suffered by not being able to get the waiting aid agencies on the Kenyan side of the boarder were – yet again – the genuine refugees. So much misery for so little gain, this pattern of actions keeps being repeated and keeps swelling the ranks and coffers of the real enemy. Don’t back the despots, when civilians need help, help them and make a few friends. So much damage has been done to America’s reputation in the Muslim world it may be a very long time before they start saluting the Stars and Stripes but lets try and at least get a few less burnt.

[Ken White]

wrong with saying what you think.

Firstly an apology, I had just waded through the BBC international site and was seething from the unnecessary loss of life and general hatred in the days news. I then made two hasty and provocative posts which, on reflection, should have been toned down.
Sorry Steve and everyone else.

That said I would still disagree with Ken on 9/11 being a watershed in US policy. The birth of the GWOT was not the start of those with power throwing their weight around but it was a major change in policy focus and I would argue counter-productively...

I think that you're partly correct, it was a 'policy change' of sorts -- but only in that it became a stated policy rather than an unstated but actual policy we have pursued for over 200 years. Both Britain and France were horrified in 1801 that we elected to attack the Barbary Corsairs rather than pay tribute and tolerate their enslavement of westerners. As has been said, there is little new under the sun.

What Bush did was flout the rules of international diplomacy; he rejected Kyoto -- but so had the US Senate some years before, it was never going to be ratified. Same thing applies to the International Criminal court; the Senate will never agree to that (correctly in my opinion). Bush didn't change reality, he merely talked about it. Look at pre-emptive strikes for example; we've done literally hundreds over the years; just never announced it as a policy. Bush did that -- that just got a lot of people's knickers in a twist when all he really did was give voice to something we -- and most nations in the world -- have always practiced but wouldn't talk about.

I've been traveling internationally since 1947. Anti-Americanism was present then and it has broadly stayed at the same level since. Viet Nam was a high point; more approbation appeared then than does today.

As to the Brits in days of empire I would not even consider trying defend some of their actions, opium, East India company etc. etc. I don’t know the origin of the term ‘Gunboat diplomacy’ but I have a nasty feeling we might have spawned it.

Why would you not defend it? You had nothing to do with it. Britain reacted in tune with the times to events. Did they make mistakes? Sure. However, you did more good than harm. You have every right to be proud of the accomplishments of the empire and no need to be apologetic. I cannot understand this new trait of self-flagellation in the European hearth; I see it as self righteous but self defeating foolishness.

...So much misery for so little gain, this pattern of actions keeps being repeated and keeps swelling the ranks and coffers of the real enemy. Don’t back the despots, when civilians need help, help them and make a few friends. So much damage has been done to America’s reputation in the Muslim world it may be a very long time before they start saluting the Stars and Stripes but lets try and at least get a few less burnt.

If everyone was as nice as you undoubtedly are and shared your views, that would be a good wish. regrettably, I fear a good many in this world are not that nice.

I'd also submit that had the US not 'turned the other cheek' so very many times in bowing to international good will pressures in the past and had instead responded fairly and forcefully to provocations we would not have many of the problems that today exist in the world. the meek may inherit the Earth -- but there are a lot of un-meek folks out there who work mightily to preclude that...