Your Very Serious Guide to Future American Military Adventures

Friends, as a Very Serious Foreign Policy Thinker, I have many Very Serious Ideas about good places for American troops to go and intervene all over everybody. I would like to share with you ten current “hot-spots” and the rationale for or against (SPOILER ALERT: mostly for!) American military intervention there:

  1. Syria: The obvious pick. America should have been bombing this place 2 years ago. Instead of unrelenting civil war and civilian massacres perpetrated by Bashar Assad, we could have toppled Assad and made the last two years…different, somehow. Like, Syria might have seen unrelenting civil war between various militias and fragments of the rebel forces and sectarian massacres perpetrated by Sunni extremists, instead. That would have been different! Anyway, Shiʿite government repressing Sunnis? We should be backing those Sunnis, man!
  2. Iraq: Shiʿite government repressing Sunnis? We should be backing those Shiʿites, man! Really, we never should have left.
  3. Iran: Syria wouldn’t even have been an issue if we would have just gone to war against Iran a decade or so ago when all the “real men” wanted to go to Tehran. This is a no brainer: Iran sponsors Islamic extremists in other parts of the Middle East, intervenes to quash popular uprisings in neighboring countries, and, most worrisome of all, may have an active nuclear weapons program. (CAUTION: Some of those links may have gotten screwed up somehow. I’m trying to figure out what happened and correct the problem.)
  4. Libya: Another no-brainer. Our last intervention took them from “country being brutally repressed by horrible tyrant” to “chaotic, anarchic, post-apocalyptic hellscape,” so they’re only 2, maybe 3 more interventions away from having a stable, functioning nation! Well, 4 more, tops, or 5.
  5. Democratic Republic of the Congo: Yes, but only because we need a non-Muslim country to invade or else people might get the wrong idea.
  6. Central African Republic: Where’s that? But, whatever, sure.
  7. Somalia: Nope, no, not going there. Well, OK, but cruise missiles only.
  8. Mali: Yes, but only after the French have to bug out. Like old times, you know?
  9. Myanmar: Well, the Rohingya are being systematically wiped out, but you’ve got to draw the line somewhere…oh, heck, we can spare a few cruise missiles for these guys, can’t we? I’m sure some airstrikes will fix things right up, somehow.
  10. Venezuela: What? Us, intervene to topple an elected, if unsavory, leftist government in Latin America? What is this, 1973? Wait, I’m not saying “no,” but it’ll probably have to wait until we clean up 3 or 4 of these other places.

What’s that you’re asking? What’s the plan for any of these places after America intervenes? How the hell should I know? Thinking about that kind of garbage would be a waste of my beautiful Very Serious Foreign Policy Mind. I’m sure whatever the eggheads decide will be just great. A real step toward freedom for the blah blah blah, OK?

Author: DWD

writer, blogger, lover, fighter

4 thoughts

    1. The French finally did intervene in Rwanda, and wound up helping the Hutu genocidaires regroup and recover from the Tutsi counter-attack. The most charitable thing you can say about that intervention is that they had no idea what they were doing but they marched in anyway. Kind of like what we tend to do.

Leave a Reply