Saturday, May 31, 2008
Tehran says members of the Jundullah terrorist group taken into custody in Pakistan may be extradited to Iran as early as next week.
“We are currently discussing the matter with the Pakistani government and there is a possibility that the terrorists will be turned over to Iran in the coming week,” caretaker Interior Minister, Mehdi Hashemi told reporters on Saturday.
Hashemi added that the two sides had agreed on the fate of the terrorists but had not yet set an exact date for their extradition to Iran.
Jundullah, which operates in Iran's Sistan-Baluchistan and Pakistan's Balochistan, has carried out a number of attacks against high profile Iranian targets, especially government and security officials.
The ABC news reported in 2007 that the terrorist cell has been 'secretly encouraged and advised' by American officials since 2005.
According to American intelligence sources, the US relationship with Jundullah has been arranged so that Washington provides no funding, which would require an official presidential order, to the group. (The money, no doubt, comes from Saudi Arabia and the guns and training from Israel. VS)
How fitting, isn't it? The devil's man fears the Party of God. There is a certain poetic beauty to this, I think.
Also, one could really very accurately refer to the Zionists and the Necons has Hizbshaitan, or Party of Satan as this party has always used lies and deception as its main method to reach its goals:
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it (John 8:44).
Hezbollah against Hezbshaitan - not a bad description of what is going on in the Middle-East and the rest of the world..
In the meanwhile, former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer says Israel is planning to attack Iran in the near future over its nuclear program.
Is anybody paying attention to all this?!?!
Looking at the blogosphere I get the feeling that nobody is paying any attention at all...
Friday, May 30, 2008
The brightest and best of the presidential hopefuls seeks to extend a cruel, immoral Cuba blockade
By Fidel Castro
It would be dishonest of me to remain silent after hearing Barack Obama's speech delivered at the Cuban American National Foundation last Friday. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries a favour. I have therefore no reservations about criticising him and expressing myself frankly.
What were Obama's statements? "Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy ... I won't stand for this injustice ... I will maintain the embargo."
This man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate for the US presidency, portrays the Cuban revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the same argument US administrations have used again and again to justify crimes against our country. The blockade is an act of genocide. I don't want to see US children inculcated with those shameful values.
No small and blockaded country like ours would have been able to hold its ground for so long on the basis of ambition, vanity, deceit or the abuse of power, the kind of power its neighbour has. To state otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of our heroic people.
I am not questioning Obama's great intelligence, his debating skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.
Is it right for the president of the US to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext? Is it ethical for the president of the US to order the torture of other human beings? Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the US as an instrument to bring peace to the planet?
Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment to only one country, Cuba, in order to destabilise it, good and honourable when it costs innocent children and mothers their lives? Are the brain drain and the continuous theft of the best scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and justifiable?
Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks? Is it honourable and sane to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military-industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over? Is that the way in which the US expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights?
Before judging our country, Obama should know that Cuba - with its education, health, sports, culture and science programmes, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world, and in spite of the economic and financial blockade and the aggression of his powerful country - is proof that much can be done with very little. Cuba has never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements. We offered the US our help when hurricane Katrina lashed the city of New Orleans. Our revolution can mobilise tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilise an equally vast number of teachers and citizens who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfil any noble purpose, not to usurp rights or take possession of raw materials.
The goodwill and determination of people constitute limitless resources that would not fit in the vault of a bank. They cannot spring from the hypocritical politics of an empire.
· Fidel Castro is former president of Cuba. This is an edited version of an article that appeared in Granma, the Cuban Communist party newspaper granma.co.cu
a) they are completely by-passing the National Assembly
b) they are making the SOFA an election issue
c) any referendum on the SOFA will be a de-facto referendum on the US presence in Iraq
The Imperial Command is now in a loose/loose situation. If it allows the referendum to go ahead it will suffer a highly visible and embarrassing political defeat and the legitimacy of the US occupation (assuming there ever was one) will be *officially* down to zero. If it bans the referendum it will prove to the entire world that is is an occupying force which does not give a rat's ass about what the Iraqis think (we already know that, but this will prove it).
It looks like the Shias have effectively checkmated the Occupation.
The USA wanted up at least 13 permanent military bases in Iraq and it demanded that US citizens be granted immunity from legal prosecution. It will have to do with just (barely) controlling the Green Zone. As for US citizen, whether uniformed soldiers are mercenaries, they will get no special status other that of unwelcome invader.
The occupation forces and the Shias are now on an open collision course.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The US has offered bribes to Iraqi MPs to lure them into endorsing a security deal that critics believe would make Iraq a US colony.
Sources in Iraq's parliament told Press TV on Thursday that Washington has offered three-million dollars in bribe to the lawmakers who sign the "framework accord."
Under the agreement, the US would be allowed to set up at least 13 permanent military bases in Iraq and US citizens would be granted immunity from legal prosecution.
Iraqi lawmakers, however, vowed that they would never sign the agreement which would turn their country into 'a US colony'.
The accord has faced strong objections from religious and political figures inside and outside Iraq.
Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has also protested the deal, calling on the people to hold demonstrations after every Friday prayers against the accord.
The country's most revered Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has formerly objected to the deal, saying he would not allow the government to sign such a deal with "the US occupiers" as long as he was alive.
Commentary: what is amazing here is not that the Empire would try to bribe Iraqi MPs into accepting the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) but that the Imperial High Command does not seem to realize that the entire project was stillborn as soon as Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani condemned it. Ditto for Moqtada al-Sadr.
Once al-Sistani and al-Sadr declared their absolute opposition to the deal, even a unanimous vote from the Iraqi Parliament would be utterly meaningless. It appears that the Empire has not come to grasps with the fact that the Maliki regime and the Iraqi Parliament only matter inside the Greene Zone (just like Karzai is, as the Afghans call him, nothing more than the Mayor of Kabul). From an American point of view, bribing the Iraqi MPs is nothing but an outrageous waste of taxpayer's money which simply cannot bring any useful results.
I marvel at the utter stupidity and blindness of the folks in the USA who are running the Iraqi dossier (or, for that matter, the entire Middle-East). Instead of preparing rooftop evacuation from the Green Zone (yes, like the ones in Saigon), they are wasting their energy, time, and ressources on some meaningless SOFA agreement.
That is truly the pathetic hubris of an Empire in the last throes of agony.
For all his rather crude delivery, Brecher makes a lot of good points, basic common sense stuff which the western corporate media avoids like the plague, like pointing out the huge difference between the Hezbollah operators and the hired militias for the Lebanese millionaires. There is really nothing new in what Brecher writes, but his article is interesting as an illustration that it is possible to "get it" for an American journalist, provided he/she wants to.
From Lebanon To Iraq: We’re In Deep Shia Now
By Gary Brecher
FRESNO, CA — OK, we’ve just gone through a really exciting time in world military moves, so let’s test your strategic IQ. What’s the relation between these three recent developments:
1. On May 9, Hezbollah took over West Beirut against feeble resistance.
2. The Iraqi Army, such as it is, is now moving into Mosul in a major anti-al Qaeda operation.
3. At the end of March, the Iraqi Army attacked Sadr strongholds in Basra and East Baghdad, and got its ass kicked.
If you want some clues, you can read my account of event #3 in detail from my April 2nd column:
The other clue that might help is that Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Iraq is totally based on Nasrallah’s Lebanese Hezbollah, so—to kinda give it away a little—in just over a month’s time, you’ve got two Shia militias stomping the better-armed and -funded old-style powers in Arab countries a thousand miles apart. Kind of a trend.
Item #2, the move on Mosul, is the trick question here, because there are no Shia to speak of up there; the Iraqi Army is moving against Al Qaeda in Iraq up there. What’s the connection?
As you chew on that food fer thought, let’s fill in the details on what happened and why in this week’s sudden Shia-ization of what the media always call "fashionable West Beirut." "Fashionable"—I love imagining these Shia puritans with Kalashnikovs and RPGs stalking through rubble filled with confused airhead supermodels: "Like…hel-LO? What are you…I mean…doing here anyway? In that ugly Kevlar vest which doesn’t match your beard at all, I mean YUCK, and that so-eighties gun accessory…don’t you realize I’ve got a SHOOT today?" The Hezzies don’t get her babble, but they hear the word "shoot" and it all goes to pieces very fast. That’s one of the first thing a supermodel’s got to learn: don’t say "shoot" around a nervous militiaman who thinks women should wear black hefty bags, head to foot, even when showering. Or "if" showering; for these boys, Sharia tops hygiene every time.
South Beirut or Sadr City: Can You Tell The Difference?
Hezbollah took their beach trip on May 9, but it wasn’t announced to anybody in the media. The Lebanese elite was stunned. This was not supposed to happen. It would be like West LA being overrun by Baptist gangs from Bakersfield. And there was nothing the cool Lebanese could do about it but sneer and whine and blog. Boy, did they blog. In the blog-o-sphere battle, the West Beirut coolsters won hands down. Out on the streets, though, it was all Hezbollah. They came, they saw, they burned down a TV station that had been broadcasting anti-Hezbollah stories…and a couple of days later, they left. It wasn’t like your classical military maneuver; these are commuter troops, and what they did was pack their weapons—mostly rifles and RPGs, some of the rifles looking surprisingly new and expensive—in the trunks of their little fuel-efficient sedans, and head back to the slums of South Beirut. No word on whether traffic was snarled by the sudden withdrawal: "KBRT’s traffic helicopter, Beirut’s only traffic reporter with look-down-shoot-down capability, brings you this update: avoid the Shia-town expressway, which is jammed with weekend Hezbollah visitors evacuating the capital…."
Like I said, this wasn’t supposed to happen. It’s part of a pattern that isn’t supposed to be happening all across the Middle East: the Shia militias are kicking serious ass. In the past few weeks we’ve seen weirdly identical moves by weak central governments in Iraq and Lebanon to push back against Shia militias: in Iraq, al-Maliki’s government, acting as a front for al-Hakimi and the Badr Brigades, tried to "assert itself" against Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Basra and in Sadr City; and now the weak interfaith committee trying to run Lebanon moved against Hezbollah, firing their security chief at the airport and cracking down on Hezbollah’s private communication network, which apparently has 100,000 private telephone lines running.
Nasrallah, the mullah who runs Hezbollah, called that crackdown a "declaration of war" against his boys and sent them out onto the streets of West Beirut, where the rich Sunni Muslims live.
Militarily, it was over pretty fast. There’s no armed Sunni group in Lebanon that can stand against Hezbollah. The BBC is now calling Hezbollah "by far the strongest force in Lebanon," which may seem pretty obvious now but is a huge surprise to all the so-called experts. You see, the Shia aren’t supposed to count at all in Lebanon. The Lebanese constitution lays down that the President has to be a Maronite Christian, because they were the big players in 1943 when the thing was written. The Prime Minister has to be a Sunni Muslim, because they were next. Nobody else counted for much, except maybe the Druze. But the Shia weren’t consulted at all, because they were nothing—a bunch of hicks down in the southern and eastern boonies.
Since then a lot of those hicks have moved into Beirut, and the ones who stayed home made a name for themselves by having a lot of babies who grew up to be the best guerrilla fighters in the country. They forced Israel out of Southern Lebanon in 2000 and took on the Israeli armed forces one-on-one in 2006, and came out of it looking like heroes.
Since then, the Hezbollah leader, Nasrallah, who’s pretty obviously a smart dude, has parlayed his victory into national popularity. He didn’t let his people gloat too openly--instead of the yellow Hezbollah flag, he told them to wave the Lebanese red-white-and-green (the one with the tree, even though there ain’t hardly any of those trees left in the place any more, just like the California Grizzly on our flag).
What really pisses off the "government" in both Iraq and Lebanon is that the Shia leaders—Nasrallah in Lebanon and Sadr in Iraq—are starting to break into the crossover market: after Hezbollah scored the first respectable showing against Israel by any Arab guerrilla army, you’d see Druze and Sunni and even a few Maronite kids saying "Go Hezzies!"—usually in a safe quiet voice, where nobody’d hear, but they were saying it. And that spelled death for the old godfathers who run these places, especially Lebanon. Lebanon is like NYC without the money: it’s all sleazy politicos and gangs profiting from ethnic grandstanding politics. They call the system "zuama," godfather-ism. And the key there is, you’ve got to be able to control your ethnic group, your gang. So guys like Walid Jumblatt, the chieftan of the Druze, go psycho when they see rival Druze politicos deserting to Hezbollah. Jumblatt’s business is using his people as a bargaining chip; if they’re going to start shopping around for better deals, he’s as doomed as a smalltown hardware store watching the new WalMart go up.
Don’t start thinking these godfathers are the good guys. You can think of Hezbollah as the bad guys if you want, even though I admire the hell out of them, but just don’t think those old-school godfathers are the good guys here. Jumblatt, for example, is on record saying he cheers when US troops are killed in Iraq and it can’t happen often enough for him. He backed the Syrians when they occupied Lebanon, then broke with them over his cut; he massacred thousands of Christian villagers in Central Lebanon in the 1980s. When he comes into a room you can hear blood sloshing around his ankles, and that goes for every big player in Lebanon.
They’re a lot like the old Italian mafia, in fact: they’ve still got the big government connections, but they don’t have control over the streets any more. But Hezbollah does, for two familiar reasons, the same ones traditional military types don’t like to mention: demographics and civilian aid.
Demographics first: like I’ve said before, the Shia suddenly found themselves as the only ghetto boyz in a rich, spoiled neighborhood. While all the other "Cedar Revolution" (aka "Crock of Shit") Lebanese were partying on the "fashionable" beach, the Shia were living in slums, pumping out lots of kids, hearing about martyrdom and finding out up close and personal what it feels like to get shelled, bombed and sniped. They raised a whole lot of kids who were natural soldier material, with your classic Shia martyr complex and a don’t-give-a-fuck slum attitude that was straight outta Karbala. All they needed was a movement they could actually believe in, and they’d slice through the rich-boy gangs like a scimitar through hummus.
Hezbollah provided the Shia with the cause they were looking for. You can say what you want about the Hezzies, but unlike most other Lebanese movements, including Amal, the other big Shia party, Hezbollah is NOT in it just for the money. They actually believe the stuff they say, and they prove it by getting their hands dirty rebuilding blasted slum neighborhoods, handing out food to the hungry, and trying to bring water and electricity to Shia dumps that never had them before. That kind of actual concern for the poor is just about unheard-of in these places, and it inspires fanatical loyalty when people see it happening for the first time in their lives. Sadr’s people are the only ones who manage to get food, water and electricity to the huge stinking Shia slums in Iraq, and Hezbollah has an even longer record of putting in the money and time, like Mao said a guerrilla army should, on civilian projects. So for example, after the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah campaign, there was a lot of grumbling, even among Shiites in Lebanon, that Hezbollah’s glorious fight against the Israelis had left a lot of ordinary Lebanese with bombed-out houses as souvenirs of that divine victory. Instead of dealing with these subversive complainers the usual Arab way—making a gross, gory example of the loudest naysayers and continuing to pocket all that Iranian aid money—Hezbollah actually went out and rented the heavy equipment, cleared the rubble, and put up new apartments.
So it’s not that much of an oversimplification to say that Hezbollah built a movement and an army from the bottom up, and then took it into battle last week against a bunch of traditional top-down gangs whose "gunmen" were in it only for the money. You don’t have to ask who won a fight like that. Just imagine Valmy, where French troops who really believed in the republican revolution went into battle against old-style degenerate European troops. A wipeout. The hired guns who were supposed to protect West Beirut just fled, while the Hezzies popped up all over that expensive beachfront like Bugs Bunny’s instant Martians popping up out of every manhole.
And where was the Lebanese Army that we’re funding, you ask? Keeping very, very quiet. Maybe waving a nervous "Hi!" to the Hezbollah fighters as they got out of their cars and started walking toward the Mediterranean. The Hezzies had no armored vehicles, but they had RPGs which they actually know how to use, and against the Lebanese Army’s Thrift-Store mix of light armored vehicles, RPGs work all too well.
It’s kind of an exciting time, militarily, when a bunch of weekend soldiers can carry a weapon in the trunks of their cars, weapons that will actually intimidate troops in APCs. Morale trumps light armor every time. (Air power and MBTs are another story.)
The Army only intervened when it was time to give Hezbollah everything it wanted: the right to a separate comm network, and the rehiring of their Airport Security dude. As for the latter demand, I’m not saying smuggling was involved or anything but somebody’s got to get those West-Beirut party kids their E and coke, and having your man in charge of airport security sure would make it easier to bring in da stuff, whether it’s Semtex or pure Bolivian. If the guy was worth going to war for, he must be doing something pretty darned important.
Once their demands were met, Hezbollah packed the weapons in the trunks and headed home for supper. That was another very smart move. One thing you can sort of figure out without being Einstein is that this is not a good era for military occupations of other tribes’ territory. What you want is to impose your will militarily, then get out before you become the occupier. That’s exactly what the Hezzies did—wish we could learn a thing or two from them.
So Lebanon right now has a simple box score: Hezzies everything, Old Bosses nothing. Now, let’s zip to the other side of the Middle East and see how the Iraqi game is going. About the same, actually. Weirdly the same. What just happened in Lebanon happened six weeks ago in Iraq: weak central government tries to "assert itself" against rising Shia militia, gets smacked down, then after the smackdown, the Shia militia hands back territory. In the case of Iraq, it was a Shia government, so this was all Shia-on-Shia violence, Maliki’s army vs. Sadr’s militia.
There’s still a lot of argument about whether the US pushed Maliki’s government into this or tried to stop them from attacking. I hear from sources in Iraq that US officers advising Maliki warned him that his "army" (basically Badr Brigade vets wearing Iraqi National uniform) weren’t good enough to take on Sadr’s militia on their home ground, but woke up to find the armored columns already moving south to Basra and east into Sadr City. They should have stayed in bed, as the saying goes, because if they’d had another nap—say an hour or so—they’d have seen the same columns breaking all speed limits coming back to base, stomped to within an inch of their lives.
And now for the odd item out: what’s Mosul got to do with it? There are two things going on. At a tactical level, it’s simple: Mosul and Al Qaeda in Iraq is a target that the Iraqi Army might actually be able to handle. They need a morale-building fight against a softer opponent after getting their asses kicked in Basra and Sadr City, and the Sunni jihadi nutcases are an easy target. There aren’t many of them, they’re foreign imports with no neighborhood base (they’ve alienated just about every Sunni Iraqi alive), and they’re more interested in dying than fighting. A counter-insurgency officer’s dream opponent.
There was a story last week that showed why the Iraqi Army would rather fight Al Q than keep battering its head against the Sadrists in East Baghdad. This Iraqi officer was whining, "The Shia in this neighborhood PROMISED us that they’d let us patrol in our vehicles and tell us where the IEDs were buried, they PROMISED, and then within ten meters of leaving our base three IEDs went off under us! It’s not fair!"
That’s what happens when you fight people who have the neighborhood behind them, and that’s why it’s way, way easier to go to Mosul to track down some nerd-gang of Saudi dweebs who took up Jihad 1A because they flunked Engineering or they’re scared of girls or something. Dying solves a lot of problems for people like that.
But if you really consider the Mosul operation on another level, that’s where it gets a little more interesting. It’s part of a pattern of what Cheney, that strategic genius ("Shit, Iran is RIGHT NEXT to Iraq? Why didn’t you tell me? No wonder we’re having all these problems!") expected to happen: he figured that the Shiite’s military energy would wear itself out in a civil war against Al Qaeda Sunnis, both in Lebanon and in Iraq, rather than making problems for their pro-American governments and us. That was the Cheney Plan, except it didn’t happen. Al Qaeda just doesn’t have the support in the ‘hood to take on these neighborhood militias, either in Iraq or in Lebanon. But there was a funny little footnote: Al Q has officially declared war on Hezbollah in Lebanon and "ordered its operatives to defend the Sunni community in Lebanon" according to this story:
The trouble with being a James-Bond-y international conspiracy like Al Q is that there’s no way on earth you can compete militarily with local, broad-based militias like Hezbollah. Commuting from the Shia slums to West Beirut is one thing, but the notion that Al Q’s International Brigade can all fly into Lebanon undetected and assemble to march on the Hezzies is too far-fetched and idiotic even for a Bond flick. The notion they’d beat Hezbollah if they could manage to mobilize a force against it is even more ridiculous. The Hezzies even scare the IDF, and the IDF has wet dreams about facing Al Q. The rankings are pretty clear, and getting clearer, and they add up to something simple: in Iraq and in Lebanon, two countries the Western powers have operated on like they were diabetics with Medicaid, the net result of all the slicing and cutting is victory, hands down, for Shiite militias that didn’t even figure in the big plans. They just weren’t supposed to be part of the equation, and now they’re on top.
And that’s assuming it’s all being decided by Washington. Suppose we entertain, as they say, another idea: suppose it’s true that the Lebanese Hezzies are just "puppets" of Iran the way Cheney keeps saying they are. Well, if that’s true, then…lessee here: Cheney woofs on and on about attacking Iran and just coincidentally these Iranian puppets just casually take over Lebanon, one of the few supposedly pro-Western Arab states. And they do it without even breaking a sweat. Like saying, "Hello Meester Cheney, joost a leetle reminder, we know zee game about a t’ousand times better dan yoooo, sir!"
There are two possibilities: Cheney is an Iranian mole, and he’s laughing his head off chewing pistachios, kicking back on his prayer mat in front of the flatscreen, something I’ve been arguing for awhile now—or he’s the stupidest human being ever to step out of his league—which would be Wyoming, Little League. Girls’ Softball to be exact.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
You are mostly welcome in the 8th anniversary of the Resistance and Liberation Day. Here you are filling the squares with your presence and justifying your reality and identity that you are again and again the most honorable, precious and the purest people.
Almighty God has said in his Glorious Book:
In the name of Allah, the most Merciful and Gracious
"Pharaoh had tyrannized on Earth, divided people into groups. He oppressed one group on behalf of the others, slaughtering its children, and ravishing its women. Indeed, he was among those corruptors."
And today's Pharaoh is USA and its right hand Israel. While on the other side God's promise declars:
"We want to bestow upon those who were oppressed on Earth and make them precedents and successors; and we will consolidate their position on Earth to show what Pharaoh, Haman along with their soldiers have been worried from."
Almighty God says the truth
Oh brothers and sisters, today's event- which is the day of resistance and liberation of homeland, people, and nation- coincides with the 60th anniversary of the calamity and the loss of Palestine as well as the establishment of the extorter existence. It also coincides with the 30th anniversary of the Israeli 1978 occupation of southern Lebanon and the erection of the occupied territory which was expanded later on. This occasional coincidence promotes us to think twice, review, and draw lessons and conclusions that benefit Lebanon, Islamic and Arabian worlds as well.
Although this occasion has its own intellect, emotion, literature, rights and ethics, today I will not stick in introductions. We have a lot to talk about. Starting from Lebanon and its resistance, the later has demonstrated two strategies: a strategy of liberation and driving away occupiers; another of defending homeland and people against any attack, invasion, or even a threat. Here are the two strategies and visions of the resistance: liberation and defense. They are the clear and joint message of the Resistance in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon to the entire nation. As a result of Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon and occupying a part of its land in 1978, Security Council issued a decision numbered 425. We bet on the will of the international society and waited for its implementation. At that time, it was suggested that Lebanon is too weak to face Israel and it would rather need a united Arabian strategy. However, neither the SC decision was implemented nor the Arabian strategy was found. On the contrary, the International Society and the Arabian world showed motionless, and the official society lost the will of confrontation. On the other hand, another bet was found and promoted by Imam and the leader Sayyid Moussa Al Sader. It was that of having Southern and Lebanese people be dependent on Almighty God and resist by any possible means. Then, what was the result of all the false bets? Israel weakened Lebanon and thought that it was too weak to confront. The result was the great invasion in 1982 that attempted at having Lebanon ultimately attached to Israel and at performing another calamity.
As many other countries and nations have historically done, Lebanon was divided upon the Israeli invasion in 1982. That was the case of Palestine and relatively still today. Similarly that's applicable in Iraq. It's what has been and will be all along history.
With the presence of occupation, people get divided into groups and categories:
A great number of people stay neutral just waiting in the first stage of the occupation; other doesn't feel the event at all, who's enjoying the authority, who's ruling the country: all of this is meaningless, getting fed, drunk and outs in Fridays and Sundays are more important; other are cheap tools, spies and mercenaries just as Antoine Lahid's army which was Lebanese too; other cooperate with the occupation for interest intersection; other, often the elite that are internally defeated and theoretically think of limiting national casualties to the minimum; still other who refuse occupation on political and communication level but shows no readiness to pay any price or bloody tax; however, the others believe they are humanitarianly, ethically, religiously, and nationally obliged to liberate their native land from occupation. They show all readiness to pay the price whatever it could be. That's the resisting group that believes in resistance, so it performs it.
This division- which is not exclusive in Lebanon, but rather natural, historical and social- results in the loss of the national agreement. I would speak to those claiming that there's no national agreement on resistance in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, there's any national agreement on neutrality, treachery, cooperation or carelessness either. No choice has gained a national agreement. Every group decides its own then goes on. That's true in Lebanon too. And I would, as usual, address nations being occupied as declaring that no resistance should wait for a national or public agreement, but rather carry out its weapon and go on liberating its land, people, and prisoners of war to get back dignity and glory. This is only achieved by weapon, blood and expensive sacrifices.
The resistance is a part of Lebanese people; martyrs from different sects parties and powers, whether Islamic or not, have fallen. This resistance has depended on its own will, jihad, field- action and the shoulders of its male and female youths. It was the duty of both the Arabian and Islamic worlds to offer a help. However, many have fallen behind. It was Syria, the Islamic republic of Iran and many other live powers in the Arabian and Islamic worlds who preceded. Then the first victory was achieved in 1982-1985, and another historical victory achieved on May 25, 2000: a brilliant victory for Lebanon, Arab, and the nation and a complete and brilliant defeat for Israel along with its great project that aims at expanding from Nile to Euphrates. However Israel has found itself chopped off in southern Lebanon and Western Bikaa; Zionists degradingly out. No prices. No earnings. No guarantees. Then, liberating strategy adopted by the resistance succeeded. On the other hand the strategy of negation series beginning from Madrid hasn't gotten back even a hand's span of Lebanese land; while the strategy of waiting has strengthened our enemy and gotten our country weak and in despair. As a conclusion, it is the librating strategy adopted by the resistance that succeeded in similar days of 2000.
After the 1984 calamity, Palestinians kept hopelessly waiting for Arabs and International Society. They waited to achieve at least one Arabian strategy.
Concerning Iraq, America has been playing the occupation and democratic game. What's going on there is an obvious American occupation and monopoly of this country's resources. The occupational aims are getting clearer today. How? In the post occupation period, Iraqis were also divided into two relatively large groups, as other occupied nations that I mentioned before. One chooses the political process and the other preferred resistance, specifically the armed one. Based on our faithful, ideological, intellectual, political experience as well as the reality we Hezbollah are biased to the resistance. Those supporting the political process have consumed a great deal of time, and they are today in front of a really difficult and hard test: what stance they are going to take in time that America is attempting to impose on Iraqis deals and conventions. Now, it wants the Iraqi government and parliament signature.
America has opened the door in front of all Islamic and national figures; it's actually aware of the friendships and coalitions, but it's attempting at having an elected government and parliament in a hope that they would legitimate its occupation, sovereignty and monopoly over Iraq as well as this country's security, political decision, oil and resources. At this particular point, America's reality is disclosed. And the supporter of the political process- whether they are Sunni or Shiite Islamists, natives or nationalists- are in front of a hard test. You say that you have chosen the political process as deterrence against the occupier and to eliminate the casualties; today, you have a great assessment: will you hand in Iraq for the Americans for ever? Or will you make the decision that matches your religion, Islam, Arabism, nationalism, ethics and your humanity?
Today, by the name of all gatherings here as well all free people in the Arabian and Muslim world, I call Iraqis along with their political and religious leaderships to make a noble and historical decision that prevents the ultimate fall of Iraq in the hand of the occupier. All the groups of resistance in Iraq, just as those in Lebanon and Palestine, have defeated the occupier several times. Iraq must set the liberating strategy adopted by Lebanese and Palestinian resistance. That's the only exit door to return the wounded but rich and strong Iraq to its people and nation. Lebanese resistance has also demonstrated a defending strategy. That was obvious in July 2006 when just few thousands backed by their people had been facing for several weeks the greatest army. That's what the Israeli judge himself has wandered about!
Concerning the whole Middle East region, we are not talking about a strategy written in books or taught at university but rather a strategy that was well implemented and defeated an attacker and invader as his own society admitted. July war has turned the table upside down, changed the balancing, and weakened war probabilities. Indeed brothers and sisters, it's your patience, nobility, encouragement and resistance along with martyrs' blood that have fizzled out the Israeli war and attack against Lebanon and eliminated the war probabilities in the region. The probability of America's war on Iran has been weakened, and that concerning Syria looks like being so far from now. That's true for Lebanon's lessons are absorbed now. And I would address those who bet that another war is probable on Lebanon as declaring that we are the most honorable people just here; we fought in July war and we will in any other coming war!
We are witnessing now the defending strategy adopted in Gaza today. There, Israel faces a gang war. For sure it isn't either the Israeli ethics or the Arabian public opinion or any other Arabian or international stance that prevented the army from such an invasion. Israel has gotten the green lights form George Bush, today's Pharaoh. Israel counts to ten because of the honorable people and all courageous resisting groups in Gaza. Getting lost in reaching any exist door, Israel is ineffectively facing the dark, starving and besieged sector. Thus, although the absence of the matching balance, military economy and financial power as well as the international support, the defending strategy has proved itself in Lebanon and Palestine.
George Bush, today's Pharaoh and the outgoing (by God's Will) has come to Palestine turning a blind eye to this country's calamity, attacking all resisting movements in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine and all their supporting countries. He promised Israelis that Israeli will celebrate another new 60th day in the 120th anniversary. Bush is mistakenly thinking. He'll be just frustrated. This Israel will be vanished. He also promised that Hezbollah and all resisting movements will be defeated. To Bush and Rice who dreamt in defeating Hezbollah, I say that as long as Hezbollah is righteous and depending on God and having this kind of the most honorable people, it's you who will be defeated.
In the 8th anniversary of the Rresistance and Liberation Day, I call all Arabian nations and governments, including Lebanese for a serious studying of a defense strategy amid the current power balance in the region. We always set a national defense strategy, but today we need a liberating one. We still have Kafer Shoubah hills, and Shebaa farms. We need defense strategy against any attack, and a liberating one to liberate the prisoners of the war, Shebaa farms and Kafershoubah hills. However, I would say that you may feel free of duty in liberating the war prisoners for it's our promise and pledge as it's God's achievement by our hands. Soon, Samir along with his peer brothers will be here.
On 25th of May, 2000 I addressed the gatherings in Bent Jbeil as saying that we are offering our victory to Lebanon, Palestine and the whole nation. I said that we have fulfilled our duty and that we are satisfied with God's acceptance. We weren’t waiting for thanks or rewards. We didn't want any authority. We said we've liberated the land and let Lebanese authority carry its security, judiciary, social and economical responsibility. Haven't we said that we don't want to carry any security or management responsibility? Has our action contradicted our word? -Never. We haven't judged any spy. We handed them to Lebanese judiciary system. We haven't any military presence all along the liberated territory. And we asked Lebanese government to take role instead.
We've only requested more development care for southern villages where confrontation took place as well as suffering villages that I mentioned by name: Baalbek-Al Hermil and Akkar. What have you done? 8 years have passed, and you who have been demanding for the spreading of the authority, has any one prevented you from fulfilling your role in the suffering villages and the territory? Lebanese knows, but I want Arabs be aware of the fact that there are Lebanese citizens who only feel authoritative presence through policeman and tax collector. Authority's development, services and care find no way to them.
To those who claim that French and Vietnamese resistances have handed in their weapons to their country's authorities, I say that there are some resistances have either taken or demanded authority after recording a victory. We won in 2000, and we didn't ask even for participation in the authority. We didn't ask for a modification in the Lebanese system political hierarchy, or Taef Convention. We didn't ask for authority or administrations. We requested not to monopolize the authority, be fair instead, care about people, solve their social and economical problems, and protect their dignities.
Today I renew our request. We want neither authority, nor monopoly, ruling nor imposing our ideology and project in Lebanon. We believe such a diverse country couldn't rule without the participation, presentation, unity and solidarity of all its public components. That's what we emphasized on. Many have attempted to distort this truth in their media. They mistakenly think that they would degrade us as attaching Hezbollah to Wilayat Al Faqih (the Legist's Guardianship). -Never. I declare today, as I did many times before, that I am proud of being one of the individuals in the party of the Legist's Guardianship- the legist who is fair, knower, wise, courageous, truthful, and sincere. I would also say that it's the legist Guardianship that told us that Lebanon is a diverse country and that we have to save this country.
Amid the previous events, we were accused of preparing a coup, changing the authority, and bringing Syria back to Lebanon. Exactly as what happened during July war, America was promoting a birth of the new Middle East, and now it's said that we are fighting for the interest of the Iranian nuclear file and the international tribunal. The opposition has proved through its performance after the retreating of the un-authoritative government's decisions and during Al-Doha talks that such accusations are nonsense. Hezbollah in particular didn't upraise its demands or conditions even though that some figures in the opposition suggested that as a result of their own political analysis. We didn't. We went to Al-Doha to rescue Lebanon from a resistance-national army fighting, a sectarian sedition, "the host summer", from today's Pharaoh and Haman. We didn't deploy what happened in politics. Although we have been targeted with unjust accusations, distorting propaganda, and offending attack, we didn't demand any political earning. I don’t want to have this file open now, but isn't this experience enough for those accusing us of having the dreams of authority and monopoly to put an end for this debate?
Oh, brothers and sisters, I would call today, as I did in Bint Jbeil and Al-Dahiya, for a true and national partnership in which no one cancels, drops, or win over the other, an opportunity for all Lebanese to build a true and just state ruled by representative that are truly and honestly elected with truthful and fixed coalitions. I call for providing Lebanese a chance to work together without opening ears to outside chatters.
Some days ago, the Saudi Ministerial Council demanded modifying some constitutional laws to guarantee the Arabian identity of Lebanon. I haven't discussed that among my brothers in the party, but I would like to declare that I myself, the one of the Legist Guardianship party demand having such modifications that save Lebanon's Arabian identity and prevent any foreign interference in this country. I would like to that they had better mention something about the American and western interference in Lebanon. All of our friends know well that we are not dictated, and that we are the decision maker on field, in AL-Doha talks, and in the opposition.
Oh, brothers and sisters, after the previous events, I'm left in front of two choices today; I either explain what happened before and after the decisions or I postpone this discussion until later time. I have exposed some during the conference held on Thursday May 8, 2008, and I prefer today not to disturb your content in the Resistance and Liberation Day, the day of agreement and election of your President. I will postpone this discussion and bear not exposing the ambiguity of some affairs, and unjustly accusations to the resistance and its path. Critical wounds have occurred on our side and their side, but we either go on enlarging them or having them treated. For the interest of Lebanon, I suggest learning lessons each by himself to avoid having any claims that I am talking in the language of the winner and dominant. I prefer opening this file when it will be the time of conscious and logic. Let's open now a new phase of Lebanon. It's the phase of the national, Arabian and international wedding starting on May 25, 2008.
Brothers and sisters, in front of the latest developments I would mention the following points:
First of all, I would like to thank in your name all who have helped in achieving this agreement. Thanks are paid to our Arab brothers, the ministerial committee, Arab league and the Secretary General, Qatar's leadership and people, our friend countries especially Syria and the Islamic Republic in Iran and Lebanon's country as well.
Secondly, I would like to reconfirm in the name of Hezbollah that we accept an article that says no direction will use its weapon to get political credits. But listen, the resistance weapon aims at confronting the enemy, liberating the land and the war prisoners, help in defending Lebanon but not to achieve any political earning. The question is: for
Whom has the other weapon been, accumulated, and trained on? The state's weapon including that of the army and internal forces is to defend the homeland and the state, protect the citizens and their rights as well as to spread security all along the country. It's not permissible to use the resistance weapon to get any political earnings and the same is applicable on the state's weapon. It isn't permissible to be used to face an internal political opponent group, to achieve external projects that would weaken Lebanon in his battle against the enemy, or to confront the resistance and its weapon. Every weapon whether of the resistance and the state must work for the aims it's made and set for.
Thirdly, the election law that we achieved is better than that of 2000 for it allow relative representation for all Lebanon's groups. It's a compromise between those who want to solve Lebanon's crises in a hope that Lebanese will sit later on and discuss a modern election law that establish a state. All those who urge the need of building a state, their claims vanish and intentions disclose as they approach the election law. Election law is the introducing step toward establishing a state, and remakes its authority, government and institutions.
When some attempts at forming a law that fits with its own size, leadership, party or sect, that doesn’t indicate that they are willing at having a real state. Accusing others in not enough; who doesn't want to offer Lebanese a fair modern and representative law in fact wants farms instead. Any way, that's the possible compromise in a hope that Lebanese will achieve a better one.
Fourth, the election of the Major General Michael Soleiman renews the hope of Lebanese in having a new era. His oath speech that we heard yesterday expresses the accord spirit and the title of the coming phase. That's what Lebanon needs: accord, partnership, cooperation, and being away from monopoly.
Fifth, national government is not a victory of opposition over authority. It's a victory of Lebanon, Lebanese, coexistence, and state's project for this country couldn't be built, continue, last, unless there's accord, cooperation and solidarity.
I declared that the purpose of the strike in Riyagh Al Soleh, and Martyrs' Square is to have a national government. I knew that it will take time. At that time, I announced "as I usually promise a victory, I promise another one again", but I didn't mean it would be a victory of one group over another for I believe that Lebanon's victory would only be achieved by a national government. And when we achieved it in Al Doha talks, I declared that it's not a victory of one group over another but rather of Lebanon. As it was the victory achieved on May 25, 2000 a victory for the entire Lebanon, the same is applicable to the victory achieved 2006 and that of Al-Doha agreement.
We are going to make a cabinet, and as I promised other groups of the opposition would participate even on the behalf of Hezbollah's portions. That's Lebanon, a compound of portions and stocks. We are going to have the opposition well presented in this cabinet in a hope that we would have a serious and responsible cabinet that solves problems of Lebanese whose age has been lost with governments that pass time and worry about the coming elections.
Sixth, I would honestly call the movement and the beloved of premier and martyr Rafik Al Hariri to benefit from his great experience, thinking and strategic horizons concerning Lebanon. His great mind enabled him to harmonize between the project of constructing Lebanon, the state and the resistance. Lebanon was put under two options: being either the destructed Hon-Kong or the eastern glory Hanoi with occupied lands, seized sovereignty, underfoot dignity, permissible security by Israel.
With the mentality of the premier and martyr Rafik Al Hariri, the resistance could confirm that neither Honk-Kong nor Hanoi is the model to be followed, but rather we make our own model. We can demonstrate that we are a country of construction, economy, partnerships, and production along with a resistance that doesn't compete the state's authority; but rather it shares the state's responsibility in liberating and defending the land. That was the coexistence style between the resistance and the premier and Martyr Rafik AL Hariri. Those have been loyal to the inheritance of Rafik Al Hariri, have to vitalize this model. We are not calling for a dual, triple or quartet coalition, but rather for as large participation of all political groups in this government as possible and not for monopolizing for the behalf of any sect, position, authority, or institution.
I ask God to have a nice and calm summer. Let's cooperate. Two dreams are shadowing Lebanon: the American hot summer and the nice and clam Lebanese summer. Let's fulfill our own dreams instead of our enemy's. I promise you along with all our beloved in the Islamic and Arabic worlds that we will make our best to overcome hostility, sensitive, and wounds. Let's construct and protect Lebanon hand in hand.
I would like to raise great and appreciating thanks for all without mention names. Thanks for Islamic Sunni leaderships in Lebanon and the Arabian and Islamic worlds. Thanks to religious, political and intellectual leaderships whose courageous stances that put an end to the American project which tries to propagate any conflict in the world as a sectarian sedition. Thanks to all Durzi national leaderships including sons of Maarouf, the resistant men, sheikhs, leaders, politicians, journalists, powers and parties for their stances have declared that what was going on wasn't at all a Shiite-Durzi sedition.
Thanks to the Christian national leaderships disclosed the reality of the political conflict which is far from being a sectarian one. Mercy is for the spirits of all martyrs.
It was written that Hezbollah isn't disclosing the number of his martyrs in the last event. There are 14 martyrs of Hezbollah and two martyrs of Lebanese (Saraya) brigades for Fighting Occupation, a number of martyrs of Amal Movement, another number of the Syrian National and Social Party, still another of Lebanese Democratic Party. To remove any ambiguity, the martyrs are Sunni and Shiite Muslims, Christians, and Druze. We are proud of all of their martyrdoms. But we are sorry for the victims fallen on the other side. It was a battle with fire. We'll talk about this file later on. What soften the issue is that the blood shed lately has pushed Lebanon to the end of a dark and long tunnel. Without this blood, Lebanon was dragged to a place where no state can be established. We owe these martyrs for having driven Lebanon to a new summer, phase and life.
We appreciate, pay respect, and stretch hand of cooperation to build Lebanon that is strong, valuable, fair, well-protected; Lebanon that is as highly as its mountains, as everlasting as its cedars.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Tuesday told the visiting political supremo of Hamas to keep up the resistance against Israel, warning that abandoning the struggle would lead to disgrace.
The meeting between Khamanei and Khaled Meshaal came a week after Syria and Israel announced they had resumed indirect peace negotiations through Turkish mediators, after an eight-year freeze.
"It is evident today that the Zionist regime is at its lowest ebb and is unable to resist the patient Palestinian people," Khamenei was quoted by state radio as telling the Syria-based Meshaal.
"Thank God the Palestinian people have stood like a mountain despite the disaster. The only way to the liberation of Palestine is to resist faithfully.
"The ones who choose a path that is not one of resistance will pay a price and be disgraced in the eyes of God," he added.
All this is clearly hinting at the context of the Israeli-Syrian negotiations which, sooner rather than later, will result in Syria openly fall under Washington's sphere of influence. Clearly Tehran and Hamas are preparing for the Syrian betrayal.
NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.
Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.
The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.
Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents. In January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate general in Erbil, Iraq, arresting five staff members, including two Iranian diplomats it held until November. Last September, the US Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 76-22 urging President George W Bush to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization. Following this non-binding "sense of the senate" resolution, the White House declared sanctions against the Quds Force as a terrorist group in October. The Bush administration has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, though most intelligence analysts say the program has been abandoned.
An attack on Iraq would fit the Bush administration's declared policy on Iraq. Administration officials questioned directly about military action against Iran routinely assert that "all options remain on the table".
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Senators and the Bush administration denied the resolution and terrorist declaration were preludes to an attack on Iran. However, attacking Iran rarely seems far from some American leaders' minds. Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain recast the classic Beach Boys tune Barbara Ann as "Bomb Iran". Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton promised "total obliteration" for Iran if it attacked Israel.
The US and Iran have a long and troubled history, even without the proposed air strike. US and British intelligence were behind attempts to unseat prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who nationalized Britain's Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company, and returned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power in 1953. President Jimmy Carter's pressure on the Shah to improve his dismal human-rights record and loosen political control helped the 1979 Islamic revolution unseat the Shah.
But the new government under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned the US as "the Great Satan" for its decades of support for the Shah and its reluctant admission into the US of the fallen monarch for cancer treatment. Students occupied the US Embassy in Teheran, holding 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days. Eight American commandos died in a failed rescue mission in 1980. The US broke diplomatic relations with Iran during the hostage holding and has yet to restore them. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric often sounds lifted from the Khomeini era.
The source said the White House views the proposed air strike as a limited action to punish Iran for its involvement in Iraq. The source, an ambassador during the administration of president H W Bush, did not provide details on the types of weapons to be used in the attack, nor on the precise stage of planning at this time. It is not known whether the White House has already consulted with allies about the air strike, or if it plans to do so.
Sense in the senate
Details provided by the administration raised alarm bells on Capitol Hill, the source said. After receiving secret briefings on the planned air strike, Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said they would write a New York Times op-ed piece "within days", the source said last week, to express their opposition. Feinstein is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.
Senate offices were closed for the US Memorial Day holiday, so Feinstein and Lugar were not available for comment.
Given their obligations to uphold the secrecy of classified information, it is unlikely the senators would reveal the Bush administration's plan or their knowledge of it. However, going public on the issue, even without specifics, would likely create a public groundswell of criticism that could induce the Bush administration reconsider its plan.
The proposed air strike on Iran would have huge implications for geopolitics and for the ongoing US presidential campaign. The biggest question, of course, is how would Iran respond?
Iran could flex its muscles in any number of ways. It could step up support for insurgents in Iraq and for its allies throughout the Middle East. Iran aids both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Israel's Occupied Territories. It is also widely suspected of assisting Taliban rebels in Afghanistan. (that is utter nonsense - The Saker)
Iran could also choose direct confrontation with the US in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, with which Iran shares a long, porous border. Iran has a fighting force of more than 500,000. Iran is also believed to have missiles capable of reaching US allies in the Gulf region.
Iran could also declare a complete or selective oil embargo on US allies. Iran is the second-largest oil exporter in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and fourth-largest overall. About 70% of its oil exports go to Asia. The US has barred oil imports from Iran since 1995 and restricts US companies from investing there.
China is Iran's biggest customer for oil, and Iran buys weapons from China. Trade between the two countries hit US$20 billion last year and continues to expand. China's reaction to an attack on Iran is also a troubling unknown for the US.
Three for the money
The Islamic world could also react strongly against a US attack against a third predominantly Muslim nation. Pakistan, which also shares a border with Iran, could face additional pressure from Islamic parties to end its cooperation with the US to fight al-Qaeda and hunt for Osama bin Laden. Turkey, another key ally, could be pushed further off its secular base. American companies, diplomatic installations and other US interests could face retaliation from governments or mobs in Muslim-majority states from Indonesia to Morocco.
A US air strike on Iran would have seismic impact on the presidential race at home, but it's difficult to determine where the pieces would fall.
At first glance, a military attack against Iran would seem to favor McCain. The Arizona senator says the US is locked in battle across the globe with radical Islamic extremists, and he believes Iran is one of biggest instigators and supporters of the extremist tide. A strike on Iran could rally American voters to back the war effort and vote for McCain.
On the other hand, an air strike on Iran could heighten public disenchantment with Bush administration policy in the Middle East, leading to support for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.
But an air strike will provoke reactions far beyond US voting booths. That would explain why two veteran senators, one Republican and one Democrat, were reportedly so horrified at the prospect.
Former broadcast news producer Muhammad Cohen told America's story to the world as a US diplomat and is author of Hong Kong On Air (www.hongkongonair.com), a novel set during the 1997 handover about television news, love, betrayal, high finance and cheap lingerie.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sadly, this list is too long to be ever made and the names of the victims all too often forgotten. How can we who oppose wars and violence express our remembrance of, and solidarity with, those many millions killed?
Maybe we should just silently contemplate the list of US wars and armed interventions in this country's short history?
At the bottom of this endless list there is a shorter list of so-called "American-Indian battles" which really does not even begin to express the real nature of what took place, something truly unheard of in the entire history of our planet: the genocide of not one ethnic group, but of all the ethnic groups of an entire continent. Truly, a special term should be coined for this phenomenon as even the term "genocide" is way too modest in scope to adequately express the horrific reality of what took place.
What is totally missing from this list is the internal war against African slaves and, later, Black Americans which was waged from day 1 and which is, I strongly believe, still being waged today ("Toms" like Powell, Condi or Obamba notwithstanding). While this war does not have easily identifiable battles it is no less bloody and ugly than any other war.
Also missing from our list is the war on the poor - another mostly forgotten but equally vicious and unjust war waged by this Empire.
The very incomplete list of external and internal wars waged by the US man in uniform below will have to be the much simplified and abridged version of real thing.
May this abjectly long list of wars (taken from the Wikipedia - thus the highly "politically correct" characterization of each instance of the use military force) be a cenotaph of sorts for all of their innocent and forgotten victims.
List of US wars and armed interventions between 1775 and 2007:
1775-83 American Revolutionary War
1794 -- The Whiskey Rebellion
1798-1800 -- Undeclared Naval War with France (Quasi-War). This contest included land actions, such as that in the Dominican Republic, city of Puerto Plata, where U.S. Marines captured a French privateer under the guns of the forts. Congress authorized military action through a series of statutes.
1801-05 -- Tripoli. The First Barbary War included the USS George Washington and USS Philadelphia affairs and the Eaton expedition, during which a few Marines landed with United States Agent William Eaton to raise a force against Tripoli in an effort to free the crew of the Philadelphia from the Barbary pirates. Tripoli declared war but not the United States, although Congress authorized US military action by statute.
1806 -- Mexico (Spanish territory). Captain Zebulon M. Pike, with a platoon of troops, invaded Spanish territory at the headwaters of the Rio Grande on orders from General James Wilkinson. He was made prisoner without resistance at a fort he constructed in present day Colorado, taken to Mexico, and later released after seizure of his papers.
1806-10 -- Gulf of Mexico. American gunboats operated from New Orleans against Spanish and French privateers off the Mississippi Delta, chiefly under Captain John Shaw and Master Commandant David Porter.
1810 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). Governor William C.C. Claiborne of Louisiana, on orders of President James Madison, occupied with troops territory in dispute east of the Mississippi as far as the Pearl River, later the eastern boundary of Louisiana. He was authorized to seize as far east as the Perdido River.
1812 – Amelia Island and other parts of east Florida, then under Spain. Temporary possession was authorized by President James Madison and by Congress, to prevent occupation by any other power; but possession was obtained by General George Mathews in so irregular a manner that his measures were disavowed by the President.
1812-15 – War of 1812. On June 18, 1812, the United States declared war against the United Kingdom. Among the issues leading to the war were British interception of neutral ships and blockades of the United States during British hostilities with France.
1813 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). On authority given by Congress, General Wilkinson seized Mobile Bay in April with 600 soldiers. A small Spanish garrison gave way. Thus U.S. troops advanced into disputed territory to the Perdido River, as projected in 1810. No fighting.
1813-14 – Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia). US forces built a fort on the island of Nukahiva to protect three prize ships which had been captured from the British.
1814 -- Spanish Florida. General Andrew Jackson took Pensacola and drove out the British forces.
1814-25 -- Caribbean. Engagements between pirates and American ships or squadrons took place repeatedly especially ashore and offshore about Cuba, Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo, and Yucatan. Three thousand pirate attacks on merchantmen were reported between 1815 and 1823. In 1822, Commodore James Biddle employed a squadron of two frigates, four sloops of war, two brigs, four schooners, and two gunboats in the West Indies.
1815 -- Algiers. The second Barbary War was declared against the United States by the Dey of Algiers of the Barbary states, an act not reciprocated by the United States. Congress did authorize a military expedition by statutes. A large fleet under Captain Stephen Decatur attacked Algiers and obtained indemnities.
1815 -- Tripoli. After securing an agreement from Algiers, Captain Decatur demonstrated with his squadron at Tunis and Tripoli, where he secured indemnities for offenses during the War of 1812.
1816 -- Spanish Florida. United States forces destroyed Negro Fort, which harbored fugitive slaves making raids into United States territory.
1816-18 -- Spanish Florida - First Seminole War. The Seminole Indians, whose area was a haven for escaped slaves and border ruffians, were attacked by troops under General Jackson and General Edmond P. Gaines and pursued into northern Florida. Spanish posts were attacked and occupied, British citizens executed. In 1819 the Floridas were ceded to the United States.
1817 – Amelia Island (Spanish territory off Florida). Under orders of President James Monroe, United States forces landed and expelled a group of smugglers, adventurers, and freebooters.
1818 -- Oregon. The USS Ontario dispatched from Washington, which made a landing at the mouth of the Columbia River to assert US claims. Britain had conceded sovereignty but Russia and Spain asserted claims to the area. Subsequently, American and British claims to the Oregon Country were resolved with the Oregon Treaty of 1846.
1820-23 -- Africa. Naval units raided the slave traffic pursuant to the 1819 act of Congress. [Slave Traffic]
1822 -- Cuba. United States naval forces suppressing piracy landed on the northwest coast of Cuba and burned a pirate station.
1823 -- Cuba. Brief landings in pursuit of pirates occurred April 8 near Escondido; April 16 near Cayo Blanco; July 11 at Siquapa Bay; July 21 at Cape Cruz; and October 23 at Camrioca.
1824 -- Cuba. In October the USS Porpoise landed bluejackets near Matanzas in pursuit of pirates. This was during the cruise authorized in 1822.
1824 -- Puerto Rico (Spanish territory). Commodore David Porter with a landing party attacked the town of Fajardo which had sheltered pirates and insulted American naval officers. He landed with 200 men in November and forced an apology. Commodore Porter was later court-martialed for overstepping his powers.
1825 -- Cuba. In March cooperating American and British forces landed at Sagua La Grande to capture pirates.
1827 -- Greece. In October and November landing parties hunted pirates on the Mediterranean islands of Argenteire, Miconi, and Androse.
1831-32 – Falkland Islands. Captain Duncan of the USS Lexington investigated the capture of three American sailing vessels and sought to protect American interests.
1832 – Sumatra. (Indonesia) - February 6 to 9. A naval force landed and stormed a fort to punish natives of the town of Quallah Battoo for plundering the American ship Friendship.
1833 -- Argentina. - October 31 to November 15. A force was sent ashore at Buenos Aires to protect the interests of the United States and other countries during an insurrection.
1835-36 -- Peru. - December 10, 1835, to January 24, 1836, and August 31 to December 7, 1836. Marines protected American interests in Callao and Lima during an attempted revolution.
1836 -- Mexico. General Gaines occupied Nacogdoches (Texas), disputed territory, from July to December during the Texan war for independence, under orders to cross the "imaginary boundary line" if an Indian outbreak threatened.
1838 - The Caroline Affair on Navy Island, Canada. After the failure of the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837 favoring Canadian democracy and independence from the British Empire; William Lyon Mackenzie and his rebels fled to Navy Island where they declared the Republic of Canada. American sympathizers sent supplies on the SS Caroline, which was intercepted by the British and set ablaze, after killing one American. It was falsely reported that dozens of Americans were killed as they were trapped on board, and American forces retaliated by burning a British steamer while it was in US waters.
1838-39 – Sumatra (Indonesia). - December 24, 1838, to January 4, 1839. A naval force landed to punish natives of the towns of Quallah Battoo and Muckie (Mukki) for depredations on American shipping.
1840 -- Fiji Islands. - July. Naval forces landed to punish natives for attacking American exploring and surveying parties.
1841 -- Drummond Island, Kingsmill Group (Pacific Ocean). A naval party landed to avenge the murder of a seaman by the natives.
1841 – Samoa. - February 24. A naval party landed and burned towns after the murder of an American seaman on Upolu Island.
1842 -- Mexico. Commodore T.A.C. Jones, in command of a squadron long cruising off California, occupied Monterey, Calif., on October 19, believing war had come. He discovered peace, withdrew, and saluted. A similar incident occurred a week later at San Diego.
1843 -- China. Sailors and marines from the St. Louis were landed after a clash between Americans and Chinese at the trading post in Canton.
1843 -- Africa. - November 29 to December 16. Four United States vessels demonstrated and landed various parties (one of 200 marines and sailors) to discourage piracy and the slave trade along the Ivory Coast, and to punish attacks by the natives on American seamen and shipping.
1844 -- Mexico. President Tyler deployed US forces to protect Texas against Mexico, pending Senate approval of a treaty of annexation. (Later rejected.) He defended his action against a Senate resolution of inquiry.
1846-48 -- Mexican-American War On May 13,1846, the United States recognized the existence of a state of war with Mexico. After the annexation of Texas in 1845, the United States and Mexico failed to resolve a boundary dispute and President Polk said that it was necessary to deploy forces in Mexico to meet a threatened invasion.
1849 – Smyrna (Izmir, Turkey). In July a naval force gained release of an American seized by Austrian officials.
1851 -- Turkey. After a massacre of foreigners (including Americans) at Jaffa in January, a demonstration by the Mediterranean Squadron was ordered along the Turkish (Levant) coast.
1851 -- Johanns Island (east of Africa). - August. Forces from the US sloop of war Dale exacted redress for the unlawful imprisonment of the captain of an American whaling brig.
1852-53 -- Argentina. - February 3 to 12, 1852; September 17, 1852 to April 1853. Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution.
1853 -- Nicaragua. - March 11 to 13. US forces landed to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances
1853-54 -- Japan. Commodore Matthew Perry and his expedition made a display of force leading to the "opening of Japan."
1853-54 -- Ryūkyū and Bonin Islands (Japan). Commodore Matthew Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa; he also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands with the purpose of securing facilities for commerce.
1854 -- China. - April 4 to June 15 to 17. American and English ships landed forces to protect American interests in and near Shanghai during Chinese civil strife.
1854 -- Nicaragua. - July 9 to 15. Naval forces bombarded and burned San Juan del Norte (Greytown) to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.
1855 -- China. - May 19 to 21. US forces protected American interests in Shanghai and, from August 3 to 5 fought pirates near Hong Kong.
1855 -- Fiji Islands. - September 12 to November 4. An American naval force landed to seek reparations for attacks on American residents and seamen.
1855 -- Uruguay. - November 25 to 29. United States and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo.
1856 -- Panama, Republic of New Grenada. - September 19 to 22. US forces landed to protect American interests during an insurrection.
1856 -- China. - October 22 to December 6. US forces landed to protect American interests at Canton during hostilities between the British and the Chinese, and to avenge an assault upon an unarmed boat displaying the United States flag.
1857-58 -- Utah War. The Utah War was a dispute between Mormon settlers in Utah Territory and the United States federal government. The Mormons and Washington each sought control over the government of the territory, with the national government victorious. The confrontation between the Mormon militia and the U.S. Army involved some destruction of property, but no actual battles between the contending military forces.
1857 -- Nicaragua. - April to May, November to December. In May Commander Charles H. Davis of the United States Navy, with some marines, received the surrender of William Walker, self-proclaimed president of Nicaragua, who was losing control of the country to forces financed by his former business partner, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and protected his men from the retaliation of native allies who had been fighting Walker. In November and December of the same year United States vessels USS Saratoga, USS Wabash, and Fulton opposed another attempt of William Walker on Nicaragua. Commodore Hiram Paulding's act of landing marines and compelling the removal of Walker to the United States, was tacitly disavowed by Secretary of State Lewis Cass, and Paulding was forced into retirement.
1858 -- Uruguay. - January 2 to 27. Forces from two United States warships landed to protect American property during a revolution in Montevideo.
1858 -- Fiji Islands. - October 6 to 16. A marine expedition with the USS Vandalia enacted revenge on natives for the murder of two American citizens at Waya.
1858-59 -- Turkey. The Secretary of State requested a display of naval force along the Levant after a massacre of Americans at Jaffa and mistreatment elsewhere "to remind the authorities (of Turkey) of the power of the United States."
1859 -- Paraguay. Congress authorized a naval squadron to seek redress for an attack on a naval vessel in the Parana River during 1855. Apologies were made after a large display of force.
1859 -- Mexico. Two hundred United States soldiers crossed the Rio Grande in pursuit of the Mexican nationalist Juan Cortina. [1859 Mexico]
1859 -- China. - July 31 to August 2. A naval force landed to protect American interests in Shanghai.
1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa. - March 1. American residents at Kissembo called upon American and British ships to protect lives and property during problems with natives.
1860 -- Colombia, Bay of Panama. - September 27 to October 8. Naval forces landed to protect American interests during a revolution.
1861-65 -- American Civil War A major war between the United States (the "Union") and eleven Southern which declared that they had a right to secession and formed the Confederate States of America.
1863 -- Japan. - July 16. Naval battle of Shimonoseki. The USS Wyoming retaliated against a firing on the American vessel Pembroke at Shimonoseki.
1864 -- Japan. - July 14 to August 3. Naval forces protected the United States Minister to Japan when he visited Yedo to negotiate concerning some American claims against Japan, and to make his negotiations easier by impressing the Japanese with American power.
1864 -- Japan. - September 4 to 14. Naval forces of the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands compelled Japan and the Prince of Nagato in particular to permit the Straits of Shimonoseki to be used by foreign shipping in accordance with treaties already signed.
1865 -- Panama. - March 9 and 10. US forces protected the lives and property of American residents during a revolution.
1865-1876 US Southern States -- Post Civil War Reconstruction
1866 -- Mexico. To protect American residents, General Sedgwick and 100 men in November obtained surrender of Matamoros, on the border State of Tamaulipas. After three days he was ordered by US Government to withdraw. His act was repudiated by the President.
1866 -- China. From June 20 to July 7, US forces punished an assault on the American consul at Newchwang.
1867 -- Nicaragua. Marines occupied Managua and Leon.1865-77
1867 -- Formosa (island of Taiwan) - June 13. A naval force landed and burned a number of huts to punish the murder of the crew of a wrecked American vessel.1865-77
1868 -- Japan (Osaka, Hiolo, Nagasaki, Yokohama, and Negata). - February 4 to 8, April 4 to May 12, June 12 and 13. US forces were landed to protect American interests during the civil war in Japan.
1868 -- Uruguay. - February 7 and 8, 19 to 26. US forces protected foreign residents and the customhouse during an insurrection at Montevideo.
1868 -- Colombia. - April. US forces protected passengers and treasure in transit at Aspinwall during the absence of local police or troops on the occasion of the death of the President of Colombia.
1870 -- Mexico. - June 17 and 18. US forces destroyed the pirate ship Forward, which had been run aground about 40 miles up the Rio Tecapan.
1870 -- Hawaiian Islands. - September 21. US forces placed the American flag at half mast upon the death of Queen Kalama, when the American consul at Honolulu would not assume responsibility for so doing.
1871 -- Korea. Shinmiyangyo Battle in Korea - June 10 to 12. A US naval force attacked and captured five forts to punish natives for depredations on Americans, particularly for murdering the crew of the General Sherman and burning the schooner, and for later firing on other American small boats taking soundings up the Salee River.
1873 -- Colombia (Bay of Panama). - May 7 to 22, September 23 to October 9. U.S. forces protected American interests during hostilities between local groups over control of the government of the State of Panama.
1873-96 -- Mexico. United States troops crossed the Mexican border repeatedly in pursuit of cattle and other thieves and other brigands.
1874 -- Hawaiian Islands. - February 12 to 20. Detachments from American vessels were landed to preserve order and protect American lives and interests during the coronation of a new king.
1876 -- Mexico. - May 18. An American force was landed to police the town of Matamoros, Tamaulipas State, temporarily while it was without other government.
1882 -- Egypt. - July 14 to 18. American forces landed to protect American interests during warfare between British and Egyptians and looting of the city of Alexandria by Arabs.
1885 -- Panama (Colon). - January 18 and 19. US forces were used to guard the valuables in transit over the Panama Railroad, and the safes and vaults of the company during revolutionary activity. In March, April, and May in the cities of Colon and Panama, the forces helped reestablish freedom of transit during revolutionary activity.
1888 -- Korea. - June. A naval force was sent ashore to protect American residents in Seoul during unsettled political conditions, when an outbreak of the populace was expected.
1888 -- Haiti. - December 20. A display of force persuaded the Haitian Government to give up an American steamer which had been seized on the charge of breach of blockade.
1888-89 -- Samoa. - November 14, 1888, to March 20, 1889. US forces were landed to protect American citizens and the consulate during a native civil war.
1889 -- Hawaiian Islands. - July 30 and 31. US forces protected American interests at Honolulu during a revolution.
1890 -- Argentina. A naval party landed to protect US consulate and legation in Buenos Aires.
1891 -- Haiti. US forces sought to protect American lives and property on Navassa Island.
1891 -- Bering Strait. - July 2 to October 5. Naval forces sought to stop seal poaching.
1891 -- Chile. - August 28 to 30. US forces protected the American consulate and the women and children who had taken refuge in it during a revolution in Valparaiso.
1893 -- Hawaii. - January 16 to April 1. Marines were landed ostensibly to protect American lives and property, but many believed actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole. This action was disavowed by the United States.
1894 -- Brazil. - January. A display of naval force sought to protect American commerce and shipping at Rio de Janeiro during a Brazilian civil war.
1894 -- Nicaragua. - July 6 to August 7. US forces sought to protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution.
1894-95 -- China. Marines were stationed at Tientsin and penetrated to Peking for protection purposes during the First Sino-Japanese War.
1894-95 -- China. A naval vessel was beached and used as a fort at Newchwang for protection of American nationals.
1894-96 -- Korea. - July 24, 1894 to April 3, 1896. A guard of marines was sent to protect the American legation and American lives and interests at Seoul during and following the Sino-Japanese War.
1895 -- Colombia. - March 8 to 9. US forces protected American interests during an attack on the town of Bocas del Toro by a bandit chieftain.
1895-96 -- Venezuela. - Settlement of boundary dispute.
1896 -- Nicaragua. - May 2 to 4. US forces protected American interests in Corinto during political unrest.
1898 -- Nicaragua. - February 7 and 8. US forces protected American lives and property at San Juan del Sur.
1898 -- Spanish-American War On April 25, 1898, the United States declared war with Spain. The war followed a Cuban insurrection, the Cuban War of Independence against Spanish rule and the sinking of the USS Maine in the harbor at Havana.
1898-99 -- Samoa. Second Samoan Civil War a conflict that reached a head in 1898 when Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States were locked in dispute over who should have control over the Samoan island chain.
1898-99 -- China. - November 5, 1898 to March 15, 1899. US forces provided a guard for the legation at Peking and the consulate at Tientsin during contest between the Dowager Empress and her son.
1899 -- Nicaragua. American and British naval forces were landed to protect national interests at San Juan del Norte, February 22 to March 5, and at Bluefields a few weeks later in connection with the insurrection of Gen. Juan P. Reyes.
1899-1913 -- Philippine Islands. Philippine-American War US forces protected American interests following the war with Spain, defeating rebellious Filipinos seeking immediate national independence. The U.S. government declared the “insurgency” officially over in 1902, when the Filipino leadership generally accepted American rule. Skirmishes between government troops and armed groups lasted until 1913, and some historians consider these unofficial extensions of the war.
1900 -- China. - May 24 to September 28. Boxer Rebellion American troops participated in operations to protect foreign lives during the Boxer rising, particularly at Peking. For many years after this experience a permanent legation guard was maintained in Peking, and was strengthened at times as trouble threatened.
1901 -- Colombia (State of Panama). - November 20 to December 4. Panamanian Revolution US forces protected American property on the Isthmus and kept transit lines open during serious revolutionary disturbances.
1902 -- Colombia. - April 16 to 23. US forces protected American lives and property at Bocas del Toro during a civil war.
1902 -- Colombia (State of Panama). - September 17 to November 18. The United States placed armed guards on all trains crossing the Isthmus to keep the railroad line open, and stationed ships on both sides of Panama to prevent the landing of Colombian troops.
1903 -- Honduras. - March 23 to 30 or 31. US forces protected the American consulate and the steamship wharf at Puerto Cortes during a period of revolutionary activity.
1903 -- Dominican Republic. - March 30 to April 21. A detachment of marines was landed to protect American interests in the city of Santo Domingo during a revolutionary outbreak.
1903 -- Syria. - September 7 to 12. US forces protected the American consulate in Beirut when a local Moslem uprising was feared.
1903-04 -- Abyssinia (Ethiopia). Twenty-five marines were sent to Abyssinia to protect the US Consul General while he negotiated a treaty.
1903-14 -- Panama. US forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21, 1914 to guard American interests.
1904 -- Dominican Republic. - January 2 to February 11. American and British naval forces established an area in which no fighting would be allowed and protected American interests in Puerto Plata and Sosua and Santo Domingo City during revolutionary fighting.
1904 -- Tangier, Morocco. "We want either Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead." A squadron demonstrated to force release of a kidnapped American. Marines were landed to protect the consul general.
1904 -- Panama. - November 17 to 24. US forces protected American lives and property at Ancon at the time of a threatened insurrection.
1904-05 -- Korea. - January 5, 1904, to November 11, 1905. A guard of Marines was sent to protect the American legation in Seoul during the Russo-Japanese War.
1906-09 -- Cuba. - September 1906 to January 23, 1909. US forces sought to protect interests and re-establish a government after revolutionary activity.
1907 -- Honduras. - March 18 to June 8. To protect American interests during a war between Honduras and Nicaragua, troops were stationed in Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortes, San Pedro Sula, Laguna and Choloma.
1910 -- Nicaragua. - May 19 to September 4, 1910. Occupation of Nicaragua US forces protected American interests at Bluefields.
1911 -- Honduras. - January 26. American naval detachments were landed to protect American lives and interests during a civil war in Honduras.
1911 -- China. As the nationalist revolution approached, in October an ensign and 10 men tried to enter Wuchang to rescue missionaries but retired on being warned away, and a small landing force guarded American private property and consulate at Hankow. Marines were deployed in November to guard the cable stations at Shanghai; landing forces were sent for protection in Nanking, Chinkiang, Taku and elsewhere.
1912 -- Honduras. A small force landed to prevent seizure by the government of an American-owned railroad at Puerto Cortes. The forces were withdrawn after the United States disapproved the action.
1912 -- Panama. Troops, on request of both political parties, supervised elections outside the Canal Zone.
1912 -- Cuba. - June 5 to August 5. US forces protected American interests on the Province of Oriente, and in Havana.
1912 -- China. - August 24 to 26, on Kentucky Island, and August 26 to 30 at Camp Nicholson. US forces protected Americans and American interests during revolutionary activity.
1912 -- Turkey. - November 18 to December 3. US forces guarded the American legation at Constantinople during a Balkan War.
1912-25 -- Nicaragua. - August to November 1912. US forces protected American interests during an attempted revolution. A small force, serving as a legation guard and seeking to promote peace and stability, remained until August 5, 1925.
1912-41 -- China. The disorders which began with the overthrow of the dynasty during Kuomintang rebellion in 1912, which were redirected by the invasion of China by Japan, led to demonstrations and landing parties for the protection of US interests in China continuously and at many points from 1912 on to 1941. The guard at Peking and along the route to the sea was maintained until 1941. In 1927, the United States had 5,670 troops ashore in China and 44 naval vessels in its waters. In 1933 the United States had 3,027 armed men ashore. The protective action was generally based on treaties with China concluded from 1858 to 1901.
1913 -- Mexico. - September 5 to 7. A few marines landed at Ciaris Estero to aid in evacuating American citizens and others from the Yaqui Valley, made dangerous for foreigners by civil strife.
1914 -- Haiti. - January 29 to February 9, February 20 to 21, October 19. Intermittently US naval forces protected American nationals in a time of rioting and revolution. The specific order from the Secretary of the Navy to the invasion commander, Admiral William Deville Bundy, was to "protect American and foreign" interests.
1914 -- Dominican Republic. - June and July. During a revolutionary movement, United States naval forces by gunfire stopped the bombardment of Puerto Plata, and by threat of force maintained Santo Domingo City as a neutral zone.
1914-17 -- Mexico. Tampico Affair led to Occupation of Veracruz, Mexico. Undeclared Mexican--American hostilities followed the Tampico affair and Villa's raids . Also Pancho Villa Expedition) -- an abortive military operation conducted by the United States Army against the military forces of Francisco "Pancho" Villa from 1916 to 1917 and included capture of Vera Cruz. On March 19, 1915 on orders from President Woodrow Wilson, and with tacit consent by Venustiano Carranza General John J. Pershing led an invasion force of 10,000 men into Mexico to capture Villa.
1915-34 -- Haiti. - July 28, 1915, to August 15, 1934. United States occupation of Haiti 1915-1934 US forces maintained order during a period of chronic political instability. During the initial entrance into Haiti, the specific order from the Secretary of the Navy to the invasion commander, Admiral William Deville Bundy, was to "protect American and foreign" interests.
1916 -- China. American forces landed to quell a riot taking place on American property in Nanking.
1916-24 -- Dominican Republic. - May 1916 to September 1924. Occupation of the Dominican Republic American naval forces maintained order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection.
1917 -- China. American troops were landed at Chungking to protect American lives during a political crisis.
1917-18 -- World War I. On April 6, 1917, the United States declared war with Germany and on December 7, 1917, with Austria-Hungary. Entrance of the United States into the war was precipitated by Germany's submarine warfare against neutral shipping.
1917-22 -- Cuba. US forces protected American interests during insurrection and subsequent unsettled conditions. Most of the United States armed forces left Cuba by August 1919, but two companies remained at Camaguey until February 1922.
1918-19 -- Mexico. After withdrawal of the Pershing expedition, US troops entered Mexico in pursuit of bandits at least three times in 1918 and six times in 1919. In August 1918 American and Mexican troops fought at Nogales, due to a crime committed by three drunk American soldiers.
1918-20 -- Panama. US forces were used for police duty according to treaty stipulations, at Chiriqui, during election disturbances and subsequent unrest.
1918-20 -- Soviet Union. Marines were landed at and near Vladivostok in June and July to protect the American consulate and other points in the fighting between the Bolshevik troops and the Czech Army which had traversed Siberia from the western front. A joint proclamation of emergency government and neutrality was issued by the American, Japanese, British, French, and Czech commanders in July. In August 7,000 men were landed in Vladivostok and remained until January 1920, as part of an allied occupation force. In September 1918, 5,000 American troops joined the allied intervention force at Archangel and remained until June 1919. These operations were in response to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and were partly supported by Czarist or Kerensky elements. For details, see Polar Bear Expedition.
1919 -- Dalmatia (Croatia). US forces were landed at Trau at the request of Italian authorities to police order between the Italians and Serbs.
1919 -- Turkey. Marines from the USS Arizona were landed to guard the US Consulate during the Greek occupation of Constantinople.
1919 -- Honduras. - September 8 to 12. A landing force was sent ashore to maintain order in a neutral zone during an attempted revolution.
1920 -- China. - March 14. A landing force was sent ashore for a few hours to protect lives during a disturbance at Kiukiang.
1920 -- Guatemala. - April 9 to 27. US forces protected the American Legation and other American interests, such as the cable station, during a period of fighting between Unionists and the Government of Guatemala.
1920-22 -- Russia (Siberia). - February 16, 1920, to November 19, 1922. A Marine guard was sent to protect the United States radio station and property on Russian Island, Bay of Vladivostok.
1921 -- Panama - Costa Rica. American naval squadrons demonstrated in April on both sides of the Isthmus to prevent war between the two countries over a boundary dispute.
1922 -- Turkey. - September and October. A landing force was sent ashore with consent of both Greek and Turkish authorities, to protect American lives and property when the Turkish Nationalists entered Smyrna.
1922-23 -- China. Between April 1922 and November 1923, marines were landed five times to protect Americans during periods of unrest.
1924 -- Honduras. - February 28 to March 31, September 10 to 15. US forces protected American lives and interests during election hostilities.
1924 -- China. - September. Marines were landed to protect Americans and other foreigners in Shanghai during Chinese factional hostilities.
1925 -- China. - January 15 to August 29. Fighting of Chinese factions accompanied by riots and demonstrations in Shanghai brought the landing of American forces to protect lives and property in the International Settlement.
1925 -- Honduras. - April 19 to 21. US forces protected foreigners at La Ceiba during a political upheaval.
1925 -- Panama. - October 12 to 23. Strikes and rent riots led to the landing of about 600 American troops to keep order and protect American interests.
1926-33 -- Nicaragua. - May 7 to June 5, 1926; August 27, 1926, to January 3, 1933. The coup d'etat of General Chamorro aroused revolutionary activities leading to the landing of American marines to protect the interests of the United States. United States forces came and went intermittently until January 3, 1933.
1926 -- China. - August and September. The Nationalist attack on Hankow brought the landing of American naval forces to protect American citizens. A small guard was maintained at the consulate general even after September 16, when the rest of the forces were withdrawn. Likewise, when Nationalist forces captured Kiukiang, naval forces were landed for the protection of foreigners November 4 to 6.
1927 -- China. - February. Fighting at Shanghai caused American naval forces and marines to be increased. In March a naval guard was stationed at American consulate at Nanking after Nationalist forces captured the city. American and British destroyers later used shell fire to protect Americans and other foreigners. Subsequently additional forces of marines and naval forces were stationed in the vicinity of Shanghai and Tientsin.
1932 -- China. American forces were landed to protect American interests during the Japanese occupation of Shanghai.
1933 -- Cuba. During a revolution against President Gerardo Machado naval forces demonstrated but no landing was made.
1934 -- China. Marines landed at Foochow to protect the American Consulate.
1940 -- Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, - Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad, and British Guiana. Troops were sent to guard air and naval bases obtained by negotiation with Great Britain. These were sometimes called lend-lease bases.
1941 -- Greenland. Greenland was taken under protection of the United States in April.
1941 -- Netherlands (Dutch Guiana). In November the President ordered American troops to occupy Dutch Guiana, but by agreement with the Netherlands government in exile, Brazil cooperated to protect aluminum ore supply from the bauxite mines in Surinam.
1941 -- Iceland. Iceland was taken under the protection of the United States, with consent of its government, for strategic reasons.
1941 -- Germany. Sometime in the spring the President ordered the Navy to patrol ship lanes to Europe. By July US warships were convoying and by September were attacking German submarines. In November, the Neutrality Act was partly repealed to protect US military aid to Britain.
1941-45 -- World War II. On December 8, 1941, the United States declared war with Japan in response to the surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor. The bombing was retaliation for the US embargo of scrap metal and gasoline exports to Japan and the embargo on Japanese access to the Panama Canal. This in turn was a retaliation to the Japanese invasion of China during the Second Sino-Japanese War. On December 11 1941, Hitler and Mussolini, the respective dictators of Germany and Italy, declared war on the United States. The United States responded on the same day by declaring war on Germany and Italy. On June 5, 1942, the United states declared war with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. The US declared war against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania in response to the declarations of war by those nations against the United States.
1945 -- China. In October 50,000 US Marines were sent to North China to assist Chinese Nationalist authorities in disarming and repatriating the Japanese in China and in controlling ports, railroads, and airfields. This was in addition to approximately 60,000 US forces remaining in China at the end of World War II.
1945-49 Occupation of part of Germany.
1945-55 Occupation of part of Austria.
1945-46 Occupation of part of Italy.
1945-52 Occupation of Japan.
1945-46 Temporary reoccupation of the Philippines in preparation for independence.
1945-49 Occupation of South Korea and defeat of a leftist insurgency.
1946 -- Trieste (Italy). President Truman ordered the increase of US troops along the zonal occupation line and the reinforcement of air forces in northern Italy after Yugoslav forces shot down an unarmed US Army transport plane flying over Venezia Giulia.. Earlier US naval units had been sent to the scene. Later the Free Territory of Trieste, Zone A.
1945-47 US Marines garrisoned in Mainland China to oversee the removal of Soviet and Japanese forces after World War II.
1948 -- Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the US Consul General.
1948 -- Berlin. Berlin Airlift After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the US, British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.
1948-49 -- China. Marines were dispatched to Nanking to protect the American Embassy when the city fell to Communist troops, and to Shanghai to aid in the protection and evacuation of Americans.
1950-53 -- Korean Conflict. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions. US forces deployed in Korea exceeded 300,000 during the last year of the conflict. Over 36,600 US military were killed in action.
1950-55 -- Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the US Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa and Chinese Nationalist operations against mainland China.
1954-55 -- China. Naval units evacuated US civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands.
1955-64 -- Vietnam. First military advisors sent to Vietnam on 12 Feb 1955. By 1964, US troop levels had grown to 21,000. On 7 August 1964. On 7 August 1964, US Congress approved Gulf of Tonkin resolution affirming "All necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States. . .to prevent further aggression. . . (and) assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty (SEATO) requesting assistance. . ."[Vietnam timeline]
1956 -- Egypt. A marine battalion evacuated US nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis.
1958 -- Lebanon. Lebanon crisis of 1958 Marines were landed in Lebanon at the invitation of President Camille Chamoun to help protect against threatened insurrection supported from the outside. The President's action was supported by a Congressional resolution passed in 1957 that authorized such actions in that area of the world.
1959-60 -- The Caribbean. Second Marine Ground Task Force was deployed to protect US nationals following the Cuban revolution.
1962 -- Thailand. The Third Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by July 30, the 5,000 marines had been withdrawn.
1962 -- Cuba. Cuban Missile Crisis On October 22, President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against nations in the Western Hemisphere would bring about US nuclear retaliation on the Soviet Union. A negotiated settlement was achieved in a few days.
1962-75 -- Laos. From October 1962 until 1975, the United States played an important role in military support of anti-Communist forces in Laos.
1964 -- Congo (Zaire). The United States sent four transport planes to provide airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.
1959-75 -- Vietnam War. US military advisers had been in South Vietnam for a decade, and their numbers had been increased as the military position of the Saigon government became weaker. After citing what he termed were attacks on US destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf, President Johnson asked in August 1964 for a resolution expressing US determination to support freedom and protect peace in Southeast Asia. Congress responded with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, expressing support for "all necessary measures" the President might take to repel armed attacks against US forces and prevent further aggression. Following this resolution, and following a Communist attack on a US installation in central Vietnam, the United States escalated its participation in the war to a peak of 543,000 military personnel by April 1969.
1965 -- Dominican Republic. Invasion of Dominican Republic The United States intervened to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt and sent 20,000 US troops as fears grew that the revolutionary forces were coming increasingly under Communist control.
1967 -- Congo (Zaire). The United States sent three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.
1968 -- Laos & Cambodia. U.S. starts secret bombing campaign against targets along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the sovereign nations of Cambodia and Laos. The bombings last at least two years. (See Operation Commando Hunt)
1970 -- Cambodia. US troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked US and South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.
1973 -- Operation Nickel Grass, a strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
1974 -- Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated US civilians during hostilities between Turkish and Greek Cypriot forces.
1975 -- Evacuation from Vietnam. On April 3, 1975, President Ford reported US naval vessels, helicopters, and Marines had been sent to assist in evacuation of refugees and US nationals from Vietnam.
1975 -- Evacuation from Cambodia. On April 12, 1975, President Ford reported that he had ordered US military forces to proceed with the planned evacuation of US citizens from Cambodia.
1975 -- South Vietnam. On April 30 1975, President Ford reported that a force of 70 evacuation helicopters and 865 Marines had evacuated about 1,400 US citizens and 5,500 third country nationals and South Vietnamese from landing zones near the US Embassy in Saigon and the Tan Son Nhut Airfield.
1975 -- Cambodia. Mayagüez Incident. On May 15, 1975, President Ford reported he had ordered military forces to retake the SS Mayaguez, a merchant vessel which was seized from Cambodian naval patrol boats in international waters and forced to proceed to a nearby island.
1976 -- Lebanon. On July 22 and 23, 1974, helicopters from five US naval vessels evacuated approximately 250 Americans and Europeans from Lebanon during fighting between Lebanese factions after an overland convoy evacuation had been blocked by hostilities.
1976 -- Korea. Additional forces were sent to Korea after two American soldiers were killed by North Korean soldiers in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea while cutting down a tree.
1978 -- Zaire (Congo). From May 19 through June 1978, the United States utilized military transport aircraft to provide logistical support to Belgian and French rescue operations in Zaire.
1980 -- Iran. Operation Eagle Claw On April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six US transport planes and eight helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue American hostages being held in Iran.
1981 -- El Salvador. After a guerrilla offensive against the government of El Salvador, additional US military advisers were sent to El Salvador, bringing the total to approximately 55, to assist in training government forces in counterinsurgency.
1981 --Libya. First Gulf of Sidra Incident On August 19, 1981, US planes based on the carrier USS Nimitz shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra after one of the Libyan jets had fired a heat-seeking missile. The United States periodically held freedom of navigation exercises in the Gulf of Sidra, claimed by Libya as territorial waters but considered international waters by the United States.
1982 -- Sinai. On March 19, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of military personnel and equipment to participate in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. Participation had been authorized by the Multinational Force and Observers Resolution, Public Law 97-132.
1982 -- Lebanon. Multinational Force in Lebanon On August 21, 1982, President Reagan reported the dispatch of 80 marines to serve in the multinational force to assist in the withdrawal of members of the Palestine Liberation force from Beirut. The Marines left September 20, 1982.
1982-1983 -- Lebanon. On September 29, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of 1200 marines to serve in a temporary multinational force to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty. On Sept. 29, 1983, Congress passed the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119) authorizing the continued participation for eighteen months.
1983 -- Egypt. After a Libyan plane bombed a city in Sudan on March 18, 1983, and Sudan and Egypt appealed for assistance, the United States dispatched an AWACS electronic surveillance plane to Egypt.
1983 -- Grenada. Citing the increased threat of Soviet and Cuban influence and noting the development of an international airport following a bloodless Grenada coup d'etat and alignment with the Soviets and Cuba, the U.S. launches Operation Urgent Fury to invade the sovereign island nation of Grenada.
1983-89 -- Honduras. In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed US military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops.
1983 -- Chad. On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical support forces to assist Chad against Libyan and rebel forces.
1984 -- Persian Gulf. On June 5, 1984, Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes, aided by intelligence from a US AWACS electronic surveillance aircraft and fueled by a U.S. KC-10 tanker, shot down two Iranian fighter planes over an area of the Persian Gulf proclaimed as a protected zone for shipping.
1985 -- Italy. On October 10, 1985, US Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who had killed an American citizen during the hijacking.
1986 -- Libya. Libyan Patrol Boats On March 26, 1986, President Reagan reported on March 24 and 25, US forces, while engaged in freedom of navigation exercises around the Gulf of Sidra, had been attacked by Libyan missiles and the United States had responded with missiles.
1986 -- Libya. Operation El Dorado Canyon On April 16, 1986, President Reagan reported that U.S. air and naval forces had conducted bombing strikes on terrorist facilities and military installations in the Libyan capitol of Tripoli, claiming that Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi was responsible for a bomb attack at a German disco that killed two U.S. soldiers.
1986 -- Bolivia. U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations.
1987-88 -- Persian Gulf. After the Iran-Iraq War resulted in several military incidents in the Persian Gulf, the United States increased US joint military forces operations in the Persian Gulf and adopted a policy of reflagging and escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Gulf, called Operation Earnest Will. President Reagan reported that US ships had been fired upon or struck mines or taken other military action on September 21 (Iran Ajr), October 8, and October 19, 1987 and April 18 (Operation Praying Mantis), July 3, and July 14, 1988. The United States gradually reduced its forces after a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq on August 20, 1988. It was the largest naval convoy operation since World War II.
1987-88 -- Operation Earnest Will was the U.S. military protection of Kuwaiti oil tankers from Iraqi and Iranian attacks in 1987 and 1988 during the Tanker War phase of the Iran-Iraq War. It was the largest naval convoy operation since World War II.
1987-88 -- Operation Prime Chance was a United States Special Operations Command operation intended to protect U.S. -flagged oil tankers from Iranian attack during the Iran-Iraq War. The operation took place roughly at the same time as Operation Earnest Will.
1988 -- Operation Praying Mantis was the April 18, 1988 action waged by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.
1988 -- Operation Golden Pheasant was an emergency deployment of U.S. troops to Honduras in 1988, as a result of threatening actions by the forces of the (then socialist) Nicaraguans.
1988 -- USS Vincennes shoot down of Iran Air Flight 655
1988 -- Panama. In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as the United States increased pressure on Panamanian head of state General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 US military personnel already in the Panama Canal Zone.
1989 -- Libya. Second Gulf of Sidra Incident On January 4, 1989, two US Navy F-14 aircraft based on the USS John F. Kennedy shot down two Libyan jet fighters over the Mediterranean Sea about 70 miles north of Libya. The US pilots said the Libyan planes had demonstrated hostile intentions.
1989 -- Panama. On May 11, 1989, in response to General Noriega's disregard of the results of the Panamanian election, President Bush ordered a brigade-sized force of approximately 1,900 troops to augment the estimated 11,000 U.S. forces already in the area.
1989 -- Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. Andean Initiative in War on Drugs. On September 15, 1989, President Bush announced that military and law enforcement assistance would be sent to help the Andean nations of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru combat illicit drug producers and traffickers. By mid-September there were 50-100 US military advisers in Colombia in connection with transport and training in the use of military equipment, plus seven Special Forces teams of 2-12 persons to train troops in the three countries.
1989 -- Philippines. On December 2, 1989, President Bush reported that on December 1 US fighter planes from Clark Air Base in the Philippines had assisted the Aquino government to repel a coup attempt. In addition, 100 marines were sent from the US Navy base at Subic Bay to protect the US Embassy in Manila.
1989-90 -- Panama. Operation Just Cause On December 21, 1989, the U.S. invades the sovereign nation of Panama to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." Around 200 Panamanian civilians were reported killed. The Panamanian head of state, General Manuel Noriega, is captured and brought to the U.S. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.
1990 -- Liberia. On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the US Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated US citizens from Liberia.
1990 -- Saudi Arabia. On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he had ordered the forward deployment of substantial elements of the US armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option.
1991 -- Iraq. Persian Gulf War On January 16 America attacked Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait, in conjunction with a coalition of allies and UN Security Council resolutions. Combat operations ended on February 28, 1991. (See Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm)
1991 -- Iraq. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of US forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.
1991 -- Zaire. On September 25-27, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa, US Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Kinshasa. US planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic and hauled evacuated American citizens.
1991-96 -- Operation Provide Comfort. Delivery of humanitarian relief and military protection for Kurds fleeing their homes in northern Iraq, by a small Allied ground force based in Turkey.
1992 -- Sierra Leone. On May 3, 1992, US military planes evacuated Americans from Sierra Leone, where military leaders had overthrown the government.
1992 -- Kuwait. On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with UN inspection teams.
1992-2003 -- Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones The U.S. together with the United Kingdom declares and enforces "no fly zones" over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings.
1992-95 -- Somalia. "Operation Restore Hope" Somali Civil War On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed US armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. US forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). (See also Battle of Mogadishu)
1993-Present -- Bosnia-Herzegovina.
1993 -- Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.
1993-95 -- Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy US ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.
1994 -- Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.
1995 -- Bosnia. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs. (See Operation Deliberate Force)
1996 -- Liberia. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered US military forces to evacuate from that country "private US citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the US Embassy compound...."
1996 -- Central African Republic. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of US military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private US citizens and certain U.S. Government employees," and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui."
1997 -- Albania. On March 13, 1997, US military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. Government employees and private US citizens from Tirana, Albania.
1997 -- Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of US military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.
1997 -- Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, US military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain US government employees and private US citizens.
1997 -- Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 US military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations.
1998 -- Iraq. US-led bombing campaign against Iraq. (See Operation Desert Fox)
1998 -- Guinea-Bissau. On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the US Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of US military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.
1998 - 1999 Kenya and Tanzania. US military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
1998 -- Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach On August 20th, air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.
1998 -- Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the US Embassy in Monrovia.
1999 - 2001 East Timor. East Timor Independence Limited number of US military forces deployed with UN to restore peace to East Timor.
1999 -- NATO's bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict. (See Operation Allied Force)
2000 -- Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000 a US Navy patrol craft deployed to Sierra Leone to support evacuation operations from that country if needed.
2000 -- Yemen. On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, military personnel were deployed to Aden.
2000 -- East Timor. On February 25, 2000, a small number of U.S. military personnel were deployed to support of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET).
2001 -- September 11 terrorist attacks-New York World Trade Center, Washington Pentagon, Shanksville plane crashes
2001 -- Afghanistan. US invasion of Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces "began combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaida terrorists and their Taliban supporters."
2002 -- Yemen. On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.
2002 -- Philippines. January 2002 U.S. "combat-equipped and combat support forces" have been deployed to the Philippines to train with, assist and advise the Philippines' Armed Forces in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."
2002 -- Cote d'Ivoire. On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Cote d'Ivoire, US military personnel went into Cote d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouake.
2003 -- 2003 invasion of Iraq Second Persian Gulf War. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, Australia and Spain to invade Iraq with the stated goal of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
2003 -- Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 combat-equipped US military personnel into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the US Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.
2003 -- Georgia and Djibouti "US combat equipped and support forces" had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."
2004 -- 2004 Haïti rebellion occurs. The US sent first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the US Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force.
2004 -- "War on Terrorism": US "anti-terror" related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.
2006 -- Pakistan. 17 people including known Al Qaeda bomb maker and chemical weapons expert Midhat Mursi, were killed in an American MQ-1 Predator airstrike on Damadola (Pakistan), near the Afghan border.
2006 -- Lebanon. US Marine Detachment, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, begins evacuation of US citizens willing to the leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.
2007 -- Somalia. Battle of Ras Kamboni. On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected Al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.
"American-Indian" battles in the war of extermination of the Native Americans
* Battle of Oriskany (1777)
* Wyoming Valley Massacre (1778)
* Cherry Valley Massacre (1778)
* Sullivan Expedition (1779)
* Battle of Blue Licks (1782)
* Northwest Indian War (1785–1795)
* Nickajack Expedition (1794)
* Sabine Expedition (1806)
* War of 1812 (western theatre), which included:
* Tecumseh's War (1811-1813)
* Peoria War (1813)
* Creek War (1813–1814)
* Seminole Wars (1812, 1817–1818, 1835–1842, 1855–1858)
* Arikara War (1823)
* Fever River War (1827)
* Le Fèvre Indian War (1827)
* Black Hawk War (1832)
* Pawnee Indian Territory Campaign (1834)
* Creek War of 1836, aka Second Creek War or Creek Alabama Uprising (1835-1837)
* Missouri-Iowa Border War (1836)
* Southwestern Frontier (Sabine) disturbances (no fighting) (1836–1837)
* Cherokee Uprising (1836-1838)
* Osage Indian War (1837)
* Cayuse War (1848–1855)
* Navajo Wars (1849–1861)
o Long Walk of the Navajo (1863–1868)
* Southwest Indian Wars (1849-1863)
* Pitt River Expedition (1850)
* Mariposa War (1850–1851)
* Yuma Expedition (1851–1852)
* Utah Indian Wars (1851-1853)
* Walker War (1853)
* Grattan Massacre (1855)
* Yakima War (1855)
* Snake River War (1855)
* Klickitat War (1855)
* Puget Sound War (1855–1856)
* Rogue River Wars (1855–1856)
* Klamath and Salmon Indian Wars (1855)
* Tintic War (1856)
* Gila Expedition (1857)
* Mendocino War (1858)
* Spokane-Coeur d'Alene-Paloos War (1858)
* Pecos Expedition (1859)
* Antelope Hills Expedition (1859)
* Bear River Expedition (1859)
* Paiute War (1860)
* Kiowa-Comanche War (1860)
* Cheyenne Campaign (1861–1864)
* Dakota War of 1862 (1862)
* Bear River Massacre (1863)
* Colorado War (1863–1865)
* Kidder Massacre (1867)
* Snake War (1864–1868)
* Utah's Black Hawk War (1865–1872)
* Red Cloud's War (1866–1868)
* Comanche Wars (1867–1875)
* Battle of Washita River (1868)
* Marias Massacre (1870)
* Modoc War (1872–1873)
* Red River War (1874)
* Apache Wars (1873, 1885–1886)
* Eastern Navada Expedition (1875)
* Black Hills War (1876–1877)
* Nez Perce War (1877)
* Bannock War (1878)
* Cheyenne War (1878–1879)
* Sheepeater Indian War (1879)
* White River War (1879)
* Ute War (1879-1880)
* Ghost Dance War (1890–1891)
* Wounded Knee Massacre (1890)
* Battle of Leech Lake (1898)
* New Mexico Navajo War (1913)
* Colorado Paiute War (1915)
* AIM Takeovers (1969 - 75)
* Seneca Indian Nation Standoff and New York State Thruway Blockade (1997)