America became an Empire by taking over from the once Great Britain through victory in two world wars. Washington DC took time to learn the ropes of running an empire, but by the second Iraq war, Dick Cheney opined that America can take action twice as often as most nations.
In Iraq, the first action was the invasion; the second was the occupation. The world cannot move as fast as a wealthy empire, so American action always leads the discussion, never occurs as the result of it, which makes America both effective and reviled.
While Iraq was an extreme example, the American Empire continued its agenda of regime change for those who contradict its human rights policy derived from the Fourteenth Amendment:
Between 1947 and 1989, the United States tried to change other nations’ governments 72 times.
During the World Wars, the American mission of “freedom” from meddling government became a quest to rid the world of any governments that did not support 14A-style human rights, which included not just Hitler but Communism and later, those LGBT-hating Muslims.
Having learned from the Vietnam experience, the favorite American technique to effect regime change is to simply sponsor it i.e., no boots on the ground. This follows with the tendency of superpowers to fight through mercenaries and proxies, but never directly:
Similarly, covert actions to support militant groups trying to topple a foreign regime nearly always failed. Of 36 attempts, only five overthrew their targets. Sponsoring coups was more successful: nine out of 14 attempted coups put the U.S.-backed leaders in power.
Why fight when you can simply buy loyalties? In the end, it is cheaper than military action. The empire looks at regions and makes a list of countries that must change in order for America-friendly order to exist in that region, then systematically sponsors the opposition in the name of human rights.
Sometimes the media such as The Washington Post tend to reveal uncomfortable truths such as that Russia never hacked Trump’s election, which makes it easier to track the movements of the empire over time. Where will it go after Ukraine?
Its next target is the fourteenth parallel north of the equator in Africa, just south of the Arab spring countries. The current coup under way there is in the Sudan, whose capitol is Khartoum, where violent conflict started roughly a month after Victoria Nuland visited to spread $288 million for democracy.
Which country will come after Sudan? The authoritarian Uganda seems like a good option, I mean, how do they dare make a law against gay people? The fact that they look after HIV infected people is not important apparently; the signaling is more important than the reality.
The clarity of Murka’s updated foreign policy for perpetuating regime changes by paying other people to put it into effect is quite a revelation, because they do it to themselves as well. An empire needs to perpetuate itself, meaning it cannot allow simply being voted out.
It was clear two decades ago that America was going to fall unless it changed course. Like most empires, it behaved like arrogant person being confronted by his own failure resulting in defensive avoidance of that fact.
America became arrogant by the success of its regime change foreign policy but based on its visible failures, being demonstrated literally as we speak, the empire (Joe Biden) doubles down because he is defending his fifty-year effort and his flailing family legacy, at all costs.
Just a reminder that the US President directly controls the CIA. After all, Joe Biden was also instrumental in the South African coup, putting the ANC in power, and we not only know how that worked out, but we can also see the same effects in America itself.
Ignoring Joe Biden as a person with the understanding that democratic politicians tend to be narcissistic, a general observation can be made that narcissism may have different results depending on the culture involved. For example, I have written how betrayal of African political trust that can result in generational revenge.
However, in English speaking countries, failure, or the threat of exposing failure, may result in generational vindictiveness. This is different to revenge in that vindictiveness is like stalking someone with a perpetual intent to harm, while revenge will be to ignore the opponent until a price can be extracted even if it takes a generation.
It is also not just politicians that are affected by this, other parts of the culture is also affected, such as lawyers in the Department of Justice displaying prosecutorial vindictiveness.
This analysis of the impact of Bordenkircher and Goodwin on the application of the Pearce-Blackledge doctrine to prosecutorial charging practices explains the basic concept of the prohibition against vindictive use of the power to punish, its theoretical foundations, and the Supreme Court’s amplifications and applications of the basic concepts.
The Pearce-Blackledge doctrine is not followed it seems these days, even if a direct (mis)application of this doctrine in the many Trump cases is unproven up to now (not that anybody checked it that I know of). The same applies to the Assange case.
In summary one may be forgiven for connecting the fall of America to vindictive behavior in explaining not only in how the mighty have fallen, but in how the mighty cannot get up, unless its culture of democracy is changed and perhaps, a new constitution is established. The people of America can still do this, but it is late in the game.