By Li Zhiwei

A recently released research report titled "Introducing the Military Intervention Project: A new Dataset on US Military Interventions, 1776-2019" showed that the US has displayed a growing tendency to use force rather than diplomatic means after the Cold War, with ever more frequent military interventions overseas. The report pointed out that America's military hegemonism imperils global peace and stability.

The report is jointly authored by Monica Duffy Toft, a professor at Tufts University, and Sidita Kushi, an assistant professor at Bridgewater State University. According to the report, the US has done nearly 400 military interventions between 1776 and 2019, of which more than 200 happened after WWII. After the end of the Cold War, its overseas military interventions increased, with over 1/4 in this period.

The report also detailed that 34% of the nearly 400 overseas military interventions were targeted at nations in Latin America and the Caribbean, 23% in East Asia and the Pacific, 14% in the Middle East and North Africa, and 13% in Europe. Military interventions in the Middle East, North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa are on the rise.

After the 9/11 attacks, the US was actually no longer exposed to any threat of force, but it has grown more rampant in using it. "Since 2000, alone, the US has engaged in 30 interventions at level 4 (usage of force) or 5 (war). The post-Cold War era has produced fewer greater power conflicts and instances in which to defend vital US interests, yet US military interventions continue at high rates and higher hostilities." "Thus, this militaristic pattern persists during a time of relative peace, one of arguably fewer direct threats to the US homeland and security." The report believed America's ingrained mentality of military hegemonism and intervention has grown even stronger and more stubborn.

Some scholars pointed out that America's military interventions in countries like Libya have barely realized the so-called "humanitarian" and "democratizing" goals. Others pointed to the disastrous consequences of America's use of force overseas, while some called Washington's current pattern of foreign exchanges force-based diplomacy. The report said, in the past few years, American ambassadors are working in 1/3 of the countries in the world, but American special forces are in 3/4 of the countries.

The report held that the US has become more dependent on force as a diplomatic policy tool over recent years. Sweden-based Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimated its annual military spending at about US$800 billion US dollars, almost 40% of the world’s total. Kushi said America's global military footprints may shock many Americans, and that the legitimacy of what it has done is seriously doubted.

London-based online news website Middle East Eye (MEE) commented on the report that over the years, America's foreign military interventions have usually brought disastrous consequences.

This was corroborated by a report issued by America's Cato Institute in March 2022, which cited the 20-year-long Afghan War as the latest case in point. Just like the military interventions of the US in Latin America last century, its interventions in Afghanistan failed to enhance the Afghan government's capability of performing the most basic functions. The report also exposed the failed attempt of those military interventions at preserving peace, whereas the likelihood of war has only increased with the arrival of Americans. In other words, the arrival of American officials was usually accompanied by the breakout of war.

The Bernese Magazine of the Netherlands published an article on its website saying that a review of America's diplomatic policies since the end of WWII would easily come to the conclusion that most of America's military interventions have more or less ended in the same disastrous manner. Washington has carried out all kinds of military activities over the world over since the 9/11 attacks, but the reality is that its military strategy is specially and strangely counterproductive.

Editor's note: Originally published on People's Daily, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.