Power, Politics and the Pentagon: US Invasions Under Post-WWII Presidents

Since the conclusion of World War II, U.S. presidents have launched a variety of military interventions across the globe. This piece briefly examines the prevalence and motivations behind these actions, emphasizing the geopolitical, strategic, and ideological elements that influence US military operations and their repercussions on the international stage.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely

After World War II, the United States stepped onto the world stage as a superpower, with its influence in economics, military, and politics reaching far and wide. This new role often saw the US getting involved in military actions, ranging from secret missions to full-blown invasions. The reasons behind these interventions were usually a mix of ideology, strategy, economic interests, and humanitarian concerns. During the Cold War, for instance, US military efforts were often justified as a way to stop the spread of communism, which pulled the country into various global conflicts.

In the time after the Cold War, the reasons for US interventions evolved to include combating terrorism, safeguarding human rights, and ensuring access to vital resources or strategic locations. While these military actions were sometimes framed as necessary for stabilising regions or protecting American interests, they often sparked controversy. The outcomes have been significant, leading to regional instability, increased anti-American feelings, and raising doubts about the effectiveness and ethics of US foreign policy.

This trend highlights a larger pattern of the US military engagement in international matters, often justified by the desire to promote democracy, security, or economic stability, but sometimes motivated by less clear objectives. As visible in the above infographic, the Pentagon has been involved in a variety of military interventions since World War II, often citing reasons like defending democratic ideals, countering hostile ideologies, ensuring national security, and humanitarian efforts. The consequences of these actions have been intricate, leading to prolonged military presence, regional upheaval, and political repercussions. While some interventions have met their goals, others have sparked ethical debates about sovereignty and interventionism.

Update

As of 22 January 2025, Donald Trump has been sworn in as the president of the United States of America. He previously held the position from 2017 to 2021, a term that saw considerable military involvement, especially in the Middle East. 

Google on 22 January 2025. Just as the chief minister of Manipur does, President Trump reminds me of that wisdom: Elect a clown and expect a circus.

During that time, he greenlit airstrikes in Syria and kept US troops engaged in Afghanistan, while also striking a significant arms deal with Saudi Arabia that affected military operations in Yemen. Although his foreign policy leaned towards a more isolationist and America First stance, aiming to cut back on U.S. military presence overseas, his administration still saw its share of military actions. 

A notable moment was his decision to order the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in early 2020, which ramped up US military activity in the region. As he steps into the role of president-elect again in 2025, the world will be paying close attention to how his foreign policy shifts, especially concerning US military involvement in West Asia, Ukraine, and beyond. Trump’s strategy is likely to showcase his tendency for unilateral moves, often using military force as a diplomatic tool, while also keeping in mind his goal of reducing overseas commitments and focusing on strategic pullbacks. The possibility of more military interventions during his presidency is still up in the air.