Monday, August 10, 2026

Vijay Prashad: When Children Are the Target

The implications of U.N. inquiry into the Israeli military’s deliberate targeting of children reach far beyond Gaza. They raise fundamental questions about the future of international law itself.

Mural on one of the bombed buildings on Al Thawra Street in Gaza. (Hla.bashbash /Wikimedia Commons /CC BY 4.0)

By Vijay Prashad
Z Network

The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel has released one of the most devastating reports ever produced by a U.N. investigative body on the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

Its title is almost unbearable to read: “The Essence of Childhood Has Been Destroyed.”

Behind the title lies an accusation of extraordinary gravity.

The Commission concludes that Israeli authorities and security forces have deliberately targeted Palestinian children and that these actions amount to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Gaza Strip, alongside war crimes in the occupied West Bank.

The report, released last Thursday, is not an emotional appeal. It is a painstaking legal document built upon witness testimony, forensic evidence, satellite imagery, military analysis, medical records and years of documentation.

[See: UN: 30% of Gazans Israel Killed Were Children]

What it presents is not merely another catalogue of civilian casualties.

It argues that the killing, maiming, starvation, detention and psychological destruction of Palestinian children cannot be explained as collateral damage. Rather, the Commission concludes that children themselves have become deliberate targets of Israeli military policy.

The implications of such a finding reach far beyond Gaza. They raise fundamental questions about the future of international law itself.

A Report of Extraordinary Gravity

The Commission estimates that since October 2023, at least 20,179 Palestinian children have been killed and more than 44,000 injured. Approximately thirty per cent of all Palestinians killed have been children.

These figures alone place the Gaza war among the deadliest conflicts for children in modern history. Yet the report’s importance lies not simply in the numbers but in its conclusions regarding intent.

It documents repeated instances in which children were shot by snipers, attacked by drones, struck while seeking food or water, or killed despite posing no military threat — as should have been obvious.

It examines the repeated use of high-yield explosives in densely populated civilian areas long after the predictable consequences for children had become undeniable.

It details attacks on maternity hospitals, neonatal wards, schools, orphanages and shelters.

It also examines the blockade of food, water and medicine, showing how starvation, disease and the collapse of medical services have become instruments of war directed against an entire civilian population whose youngest members are the most vulnerable.

The Commission investigates Israeli detention practices involving Palestinian minors. Children arrested in Gaza and the West Bank describe torture, sexual violence, degrading treatment and disappearance into detention facilities without information being provided to their families.

Such abuses, the report concludes, form part of a broader system of collective punishment directed against Palestinian society across generations.

The U.N. Commission report is not novel on this, even though the findings are devastating. They corroborate previous reports by Save the Children (“Palestinian Children in Israeli Military Detention Report Increasingly Violent Conditions,” Feb. 29, 2024) and, long before this genocidal campaign that began in 2023 by UNICEF (“Children in Israeli Military Detention,” February 2013).

In his recent book, Survivors of the Darkness, the Palestinian journalist Wesam Afifa documents the horrendous violence of the Israeli concentration camps set up for Palestinians, including children.

Perhaps the U.N. report’s most chilling conclusion is that the destruction extends beyond physical death. Childhood itself has become a battlefield.

Psychological trauma, orphanhood, repeated displacement, hunger, interrupted education and permanent disability together amount to what the Commission describes as the destruction of ‘the essence of childhood’.

A Pattern Long Documented

Bisan Owda, Heroes of Palestine graffiti, Brixton, London, March 2024. (duncan cumming/Flickr/CC BY-NC 2.0)

The Commission’s findings did not emerge suddenly. For nearly two years, Palestinian journalists have documented children pulled from collapsed buildings, infants dying in incubators without electricity, families wiped out in airstrikes and children shot while attempting to retrieve food or water.

Many of those journalists paid with their own lives. Gaza has become the “deadliest conflict ever for journalists,” reported Irene Khan, the U.N. special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Yet, despite extraordinary danger the journalists continued documenting events that much of the world preferred not to see.

International human rights organisations reached similar conclusions long before this recent U.N. report.

Save the Children repeatedly warned that Gaza had become one of the most dangerous places on earth to be a child.

Defence for Children International–Palestine documented repeated shootings of children in circumstances that raised serious questions about military necessity.

Human Rights Watch investigated attacks on schools, hospitals and refugee camps.

Amnesty International examined repeated strikes that appeared to violate the principles of distinction and proportionality under international humanitarian law.

UNICEF repeatedly warned that children were being killed and injured on an unprecedented scale.

None of these organisations described isolated accidents. They identified recurring patterns that demanded independent investigation. The new U.N. report effectively consolidates this vast body of evidence into a single legal assessment.

From a display of 2009 artwork by children in Gaza at the Palestine Museum in Woodbridge, Connecticut. (Courtesy Palestine Museum US/Corinna Barnard, Consortium News)

In January 2024, the International Court of Justice found that South Africa’s case alleging genocide by Israel was plausible and ordered provisional measures requiring Israel to prevent acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention, preserve evidence, and facilitate humanitarian assistance.

Subsequent orders strengthened these requirements as conditions in Gaza deteriorated. Although the Court has not yet ruled on the merits of the genocide case, it has repeatedly recognised the grave risk faced by the Palestinian population and the continuing obligations imposed upon Israel under international law.

The new Commission report provides further evidentiary material that will inevitably shape future legal proceedings.

The Silence of the Israeli State

Perhaps equally striking has been the nature of Israel’s response.

Rather than seriously engaging with the evidence assembled by the Commission, Israeli officials once again dismissed the report outright, describing it as politically motivated and fundamentally biased.

They rejected its conclusions in their entirety without offering substantive rebuttal of the specific incidents, witness testimony, or forensic evidence presented by investigators. Every state has the right to defend itself against allegations.

But serious allegations require serious answers.

Israeli destruction of UNRWA el-Sheikh Radwan health center in Gaza City, February 2024. (Abedallah Alhaj/United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East/ Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0 igo)

If children were not deliberately targeted, the burden rests upon the Israeli authorities to explain why thousands of children have died in circumstances repeatedly documented by journalists, humanitarian organisations, medical personnel, and now a U.N. Commission of Inquiry.

Why have hospitals, maternity wards, schools and refugee shelters been struck again and again? Why have humanitarian convoys repeatedly come under attack? Why have children continued to die even after ceasefire arrangements?

Why have military investigations produced so little accountability? Simply repeating accusations of institutional bias cannot substitute for factual explanation.

The refusal to engage with evidence has itself become a disturbing feature of this war.

International humanitarian law rests upon the principle that states are accountable for their conduct. Accountability becomes impossible when every investigation is dismissed before its evidence is even examined.

Justice S Muralidhar & the Duty of the Judge

The findings of the U.N. Commission also remind us of the importance of judges who understand that the law is not merely a technical instrument but a defence against arbitrary power.

Few Indian judges have embodied that principle more consistently than Justice S. Muralidhar, who as U.N. Commission on Human Rights, chaired this new report’s committee.

Justice Muralidhar earned a reputation over decades as one of India’s most respected constitutional jurists, particularly in cases involving civil liberties, communal violence, and the protection of vulnerable communities.

He was one of the principal judicial voices in implementing accountability after the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom, insisting that impunity could not become the norm merely because the crimes were politically inconvenient. His commitment to constitutional duty became internationally known during the communal violence in northeast Delhi in February 2020.

As hospitals struggled to treat victims trapped by the violence, Justice Muralidhar and Justice Anup J. Bhambhani convened an extraordinary midnight hearing at Justice Muralidhar’s residence.

The Delhi High Court ordered the police to ensure the safe passage of the injured to hospitals and directed immediate emergency medical treatment.

Later that day, Justice Muralidhar sharply questioned the failure of the Delhi Police to register cases against political leaders whose inflammatory speeches had been widely circulated, reminding the authorities that the country could not permit “another 1984.”

Within hours of these hearings, the government of India notified Justice Muralidhar’s transfer to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, although the recommendation for his transfer had formally been made by the Supreme Court Collegium earlier that month.

The timing generated widespread concern among lawyers, retired judges, and civil society organisations, who regarded the episode as raising troubling questions about judicial independence.

Justice Muralidhar’s career illustrates an essential principle of the rule of law. Courts do not exist to ratify the conduct of governments. Their function is to examine evidence without fear or favour, especially when the victims are those with the least political power.

The same principle animates the work of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry. Its conclusions may be contested, but they cannot simply be dismissed because they are politically inconvenient.

The proper response to serious evidence is serious engagement. That is the first obligation of any state that claims to respect the rule of law.

The Test Before Humanity

The U.N. Commission’s report is ultimately not only about Israel or Palestine.

It asks whether the international legal order created after the defeat of European fascism still possesses the moral authority to defend children from organised violence.

If more than 20,000 children can be killed while the institutions of international diplomacy continue largely as normal, then the promise embodied in the Genocide Convention, the Geneva Conventions, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child stands gravely diminished.

The report will not end the war. It cannot restore the lives already lost. But it establishes a historical record that will become increasingly difficult to erase.

Long after governments change and military campaigns conclude, this record will remain. History remembers those who committed atrocities. It also remembers those who looked away.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations.  His latest books are Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism and, with Noam Chomsky, The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and the Fragility of U.S. Power.

Caitlin Johnstone: Trump’s ‘Commie’ Freakout

The U.S. president is inventing fictional monsters to fight as he tries to prevent massive losses in the midterms.

President Donald Trump flying over Washington, D.C. aboard Marine One last month.  (White House /Daniel Torok)

By Caitlin Johnstone
Caitlin’s Newsletter

As self-styled “democratic socialists” make some advancements in blue states, Republicans have launched a renewed fearmongering campaign about the urgent threat of “communism” — an ideology with no meaningful political existence in the United States.

At a speech on Wednesday, President Donald Trump said that “communism is the greatest threat to our country” and would lead to “the ultimate annihilation of civilization.” This is just the latest rhetoric from the president as he tries to drum up fear about progressive Democrats to prevent massive losses in the midterms.

Democratic socialist politicians are still a small minority in U.S, politics, and conflating them with communists is absurd. Communism seeks the complete dismantling of capitalism and the imperialist world order it holds in place at gunpoint, while Western “democratic socialists” typically just seek a gentler, more photogenic capitalist empire where things like healthcare and public transportation are funded by taxes.

The West in general and the U.S. in particular have spent generations stomping out communism, and, at least within the confines of the Western world, they have been remarkably successful at it.

In 2026 the United States is so very, very, very, very, VERY far from communism that viewing it as a threat is just a sign of weak-minded cowardice and jumping-at-shadows paranoia. It’s kind of like reading about a brush fire thousands of kilometers away and worrying that it’s going to burn its way across the world to show up on your doorstep.

But I suppose if I were in Trump’s position I might be fearmongering about communism, too. He just lost the war in Iran, his support for Israel is losing ground with voters, people are critical of his astonishing levels of corruption and his known Jeffrey Epstein associations, and it’s not like he disagrees with Democrats on enough issues to take a real position of substance. What else does he have in his arsenal besides vapid fear-mongering about an imaginary boogie man?

The leader of the most murderous and tyrannical power structure on earth can’t take a stand against the real problems in our world, because the power structure is the source of those problems. So instead he has to invent fictional monsters to fight.

Meanwhile…

—U.S. House lawmakers have blocked a congressional debate to remove Section 219 (formerly Section 224) from the national defense spending bill, which means the U.S. and Israel will be intimately merging their military technology to a significantly greater extent than they already were.

And hell, why not. Why keep pretending the US and Israeli war machines are two separate entities. Why keep pretending Israel’s war crimes are separate from America’s war crimes.

If you’re already living together, you might as well get married.

— U.S. human rights expert and antiwar activist Dan Kovalik was recently detained at Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport by U.K. counterterrorism police, where they reportedly confiscated his devices, interrogated him, took his fingerprints, and even took a DNA sample.

The empire’s war on dissent continues.

— Also in the U.K., The Canary has been de-banked by Lloyds, placing the anti-Zionist outlet under immediate financial crisis. As of this writing Lloyds has refused to justify the move, but this new development is definitely something to keep an eye on. If banks start dropping dissident media because of their content, we’re all in a whole lot of trouble.

— You always see liberal Zionists claiming that it’s possible to love Israel and hate Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This is an absurd position to hold, because there’s nothing you can hate about Netanyahu that isn’t also innately true of the apartheid state of Israel.

Netanyahu signing the Pentagon guest book on July 9, 2025. (DoD /Alexander Kubitza)

Hate Netanyahu because he’s racist? Israel has always been racist.

Hate Netanyahu because he’s a war criminal? Israel has always committed war crimes.

Hate Netanyahu because he abuses and oppresses Palestinians? Israel has always abused and oppressed Palestinians.

Hate Netanyahu because he starts wars with Israel’s neighbors? Israel has always started wars with its neighbors.

Liberal Zionists act like Netanyahu has all these bad qualities that the genocidal apartheid state of Israel does not also have, but that’s just plain false. Israel was built on the premise of nonstop violence and abuse, and nonstop violence and abuse is all it has ever delivered, from its very inception.

Israel was built on a political ideology that is inherently racist and violent, and it is that racism and violence that elevated Benjamin Netanyahu to power.

Netanyahu didn’t create Israel’s violence and racism. Israel’s violence and racism created Netanyahu.

Caitlin Johnstone’s work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following her on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud, YouTube, or throwing some money into her tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy her books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff she publishes is to subscribe to the mailing list at her website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything she publishes.  For more info on who she is, where she stands and what she’s trying to do with her platform, click here. All works are co-authored with her American husband Tim Foley.

Two and a Half Centuries of War – A Timeline

A list of the wars of the United States in a blood-soaked quarter of a millenium as the nation marked 250 years of independence, domestic suppression and homage to militarism.

Dead American soldier on the beach at Wakde, Dutch New Guinea, May 18, 1944. (U.S. National Archives/Wikimedia Commons)

The wars of the United States of America dating from its independence, conquest of much of the North American continent, its overseas territories and indirect rule in a mad quest for global dominance. 

The British Empire began to war against the native population in 1586. Britain exterminated, by direct killings, from 1586–1776 in the range of 20,000–100,000+, concentrated in major conflicts like the Pequot War, King Philip’s War, and repeated wars with Powhatan and other tribes. This does not include indirect deaths from disease.

Total population loss from all causes in British-colonized areas was likely in the hundreds of thousands. Between 1492–1600, native population estimates for the area that became the U.S. range from about 2–7 million. The Eastern Woodlands (where most British settlement occurred) likely had hundreds of thousands to over a million. By 1776, the native population in the future U.S. had fallen to roughly 500,000–600,000 or lower in many regions, with massive losses east of the Mississippi.

In 1776 the United States took over these wars alm0st immediately after independence, completing the genocide 114 years later in 1890. About 30,000–45,000 Native Americans were killed in combat, massacres, and related frontier conflicts after U.S. independence. When factoring in other causes, such as disease, the numbers are also in the hundreds of thousands. The native population fell from roughly 500,000–600,000 between 1776–1800 to about 250,000 by 1890–1900.

U.S. Wars and Military Conflicts: 1776–2026

1770s–1790s (Founding and Early Republic)

  • 1775–1783: American Revolutionary War – The colonies successfully fought for independence from Britain. Key events include the Declaration of Independence (1776), alliance with France, and decisive victory at Yorktown. Ended with the Treaty of Paris; established the United States as a sovereign nation.
  • 1776–1795: Cherokee–American wars and related Native American conflicts – Series of clashes as American settlers expanded westward. U.S. forces and settlers generally prevailed, forcing significant land cessions from Cherokee and allied tribes through treaties and military pressure.
  • 1785–1795: Northwest Indian War – U.S. forces battled a confederacy of Native tribes in the Ohio Valley. Early U.S. defeats were reversed by victory at Fallen Timbers (1794). Led to the Treaty of Greenville and opened the Northwest Territory to American settlement.
  • 1798–1800: Quasi-War (undeclared naval war with France) – Naval conflict over French seizures of American ships. U.S. Navy achieved several victories at sea. Ended diplomatically with the Convention of 1800; helped establish an independent U.S. Navy. Led President John Adams in 1798 to push the Sedition Act through Congress, which John Adams to push the Sedition Act through Congress, which permitted deportation, fine, or imprisonment of anyone deemed a threat or publishing “false, scandalous, or malicious writing” against the U.S. government. This was only seven years after the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights was ratified.

1800s–1850s (Expansion and Early Interventions)

  • 1801–1805: First Barbary War (against Tripoli) – America’s first overseas war was fought to end Barbary pirate seizures of U.S. ships and tribute demands. U.S. naval and Marine operations succeeded. It was begun by President Thomas Jefferson without a formal declaration of war by Congress though the Constitution, ratified just 13 years earlier, required one. James Madison warned of excessive executive power if presidents, rather than Congress, decide when to go to war. 
  • 1812–1815: War of 1812 (against Britain) – Declared over impressment of sailors and trade restrictions. Mixed results: British burned Washington D.C., but U.S. won at New Orleans. Treaty of Ghent restored pre-war boundaries; often viewed as a strategic stalemate that boosted U.S. nationalism.
  • 1817–1818: First Seminole War – U.S. invasion of Spanish Florida under Andrew Jackson to stop Seminole raids. U.S. forces prevailed. Resulted in Spain ceding Florida to the United States.
  • 1810s–1850s: Various Indian Wars (Arikara War 1823, Black Hawk War 1832, Second Seminole War, etc.) – Conflicts driven by westward expansion and removal policies. U.S. military and settlers ultimately prevailed in most, enforcing Indian Removal (including Trail of Tears).
  • 1846–1848: Mexican–American War – Triggered by Texas border disputes. U.S. forces decisively defeated Mexico and captured Mexico City. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave the U.S. vast western territories; one of America’s clearest expansionist victories as the United States, born of the British Empire, began to establish an empire of its own.

1850s–1890s (Civil War and Western Expansion)

  • 1850s–1860s: Multiple Indian Wars & Bleeding Kansas – Clashes over land, resources, and slavery. U.S. forces maintained the upper hand in most engagements.
  • 1861–1865: American Civil War (Union vs. Confederacy) – Brutal internal conflict over slavery and union. Union victory after over 600,000 deaths; preserved the nation and abolished slavery via the 13th Amendment.
  • 1860s–1890s: Continued Expansionist Wars Against Sovereign Native Nations (Dakota War 1862, Little Bighorn 1876, Wounded Knee 1890, etc.) – U.S. campaigns against Plains and Western tribes. Despite occasional Native victories (e.g., Little Bighorn), the U.S. ultimately prevailed, ending major armed Native resistance by 1890.
  • 1898: Spanish–American War – Quick war sparked by the USS Maine and Cuban independence. Decisive U.S. victories in Cuba and Philippines. Acquired Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; marked America’s rise as a global, imperial power. Sparked Anti-Imperialist League, whose members included Mark Twain, Henry James and Grover Cleveland.

1900s–1940s (Emerging Global Empire)

  • 1899–1902: Philippine–American War – Insurrection against U.S. control after Spain’s defeat. U.S. forces won after brutal guerrilla fighting with high civilian toll. Established long-term American colonial rule in the Philippines. 
  • 1900s–1910s: Banana Wars, Boxer Rebellion (1900), Mexican Border War – Interventions to protect U.S. imperial interests in Latin America and China. For the U.S., generally successful short-term occupations or shows of force.
  • 1917–1918: World War I – U.S. joined Allies against Germany. Provided decisive manpower and resources leading to Allied victory. Woodrow Wilson rebuffed Washington’s admonition that the U.S. not get entangled in European affairs. Wilson helped shape the post-war order, which saw U.S. influence in Europe grow, though the U.S. later rejected Wilson’s proposed League of Nations.
  • 1918–1920: Limited intervention in the Russian Civil War – Small expeditions in Siberia and North Russia with minimal impact. U.S. forces withdrew without achieving anti-Bolshevik goals.
  • 1932: Shanghai, China – U.S. forces protected the International Settlement during Japanese-Chinese fighting. No combat; successful evacuation and defense of American citizens.
  • 1933: Cuba – Naval demonstration during anti-Machado revolution. No landings; symbolic show of force.
  • 1934: Fuzhou (Foochow), China – Brief Marine landing to protect the U.S. consulate. Limited and successful protection mission.
  • 1941–1945: World War II – Total war after Pearl Harbor against Axis powers. Complete U.S. and Allied victory, mostly thanks to Russia in Europe; established America as the world’s leading imperial power and it helped found the United Nations.

1950s–1990s (Cold War Era)

  • 1950–1953: Korean War – U.S.-led U.N. defense of South Korea. Ended in armistice near the 38th parallel after heavy casualties; strategic stalemate but prevented full communist takeover of the South.
  • 1960s–1975: Vietnam War (and related actions in Laos and Cambodia) – Prolonged and brutal U.S. effort, killing around 3 million people, to prevent communist takeover of South Vietnam. The U.S. ultimately withdrew and Vietnam was unified in 1975 — a major American strategic defeat.

Cold War proxy wars and coups (1940s–1990s)

This era saw U.S. meddling in Western European elections and C.I.A. backing of coups in xx countries from 1945 to 1990. In many cases, such as Iran in 1953, Guatemala IN 1954 and Chile in 1973 and Indonesia in 1975?, the U.S. helped overthrow democratic governments and replaced them with monarchies or dictatorships. The Truman Doctrine set the Cold War in motion in earnest and its first application was in Greece.

  • 1947–1949; 1967: Greece – U.S. intervened to fight communist and other partisans who had resisted the Nazis leading to their defeat in a brutal counter-insurgency that became a blueprint for Vietnam.  In  1967 the U.S. backed a military coup against a democratically-elected, moderately leftist government. A torturous, right-wing military dictatorship was openly supported by the Nixon administration until ended in 1974.
  • 1953: When Iran tried to nationalize its oil industry, Britain and the U.S. overthrew the popular, democratically-chosen Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and restored a king to his throne–a complete reversal of 1776.  
  • 1954: Guatemala – C.I.A.-backed coup overthrew the elected president, Jacobo Árbenz, who introduced land reforms, largely in the interest of the United Fruit company. 
  • 1961: Cuba (Bay of Pigs) – Failed invasion by U.S.-backed exiles; major embarrassment for the Kennedy administration.
  • 1960s–1970s: Laos/Cambodia – Secret bombing campaigns contributed to regional destabilization and failed to help U.S. win the Vietnam War.
  • 1965: The U.S. began meddling in Indonesia in the mid-1950s to undermine the non-aligned leadership of President Sukarno.
    • In 1965, the military, with U.S. knowledge and support, launched a violent purge targeting the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and suspected leftists.
    • Scale: Hundreds of thousands (estimates 500,000–1 million+) were killed in one of the 20th century’s worst massacres. Villages were razed, torture and rape were widespread, and bodies were dumped in rivers.
    • U.S. Role: The U.S. embassy and CIA provided lists of thousands of PKI members and leftists to the Indonesian military for targeting. Washington supplied weapons, communications equipment, and economic aid while praising the events. Propaganda portrayed it as a necessary anti-communist action. Sukarno was gradually sidelined and placed under house arrest.
    • Motivations: Sukarno’s neutralism/non-alignment, his “Guided Democracy,” protection of the PKI, and policies threatening Western economic interests (e.g., in oil and plantations). The U.S. welcomed Suharto’s pro-Western, anti-communist dictatorship, which opened Indonesia to foreign investment.
  • 1975-1984: Latin America military dictatorships
    • Operation Condor was a U.S.-backed intelligence and assassination network involving right-wing military dictatorships in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil (and to varying degrees Peru, Ecuador, and others). It coordinated cross-border operations to hunt, kidnap, torture, and murder perceived leftists, exiles, and opponents.
    • The U.S. (via the C.I.A., State Department, and Pentagon) provided training, intelligence sharing, financial support, and technical assistance (e.g., through the School of the Americas and other channels). This included lists of targets and communications equipment.
    • Scale of Atrocities: Tens of thousands killed or “disappeared” across the region. Blum ties it to the broader pattern of U.S.-installed or -supported regimes using death squads and torture as standard tools against any challenge to pro-U.S., anti-communist rule.
  • 1975–2002: Angola – U.S. support for anti-communist factions ultimately failed as MPLA retained power. 
  • 1980s: Nicaragua – Contra support failed to overthrow Sandinistas; linked to Iran-Contra scandal, which CN’s founder, Robert Parry, helped to uncover.
  • 1979–1989: Afghanistan – U.S.backing helped force Soviet withdrawal, though it led to rise of Taliban, al-Qaeda and 9/11.
  • 1980s: El Salvador – U.S. backed anti-communist government survived but conflict ended in negotiated settlement.
  • 1982–1984: Lebanon – Peacekeeping mission ended in humiliation after 1983 Beirut bombing killed 254 U.S. marines; U.S. withdrew failing to achieve stability.
  • 1983: Grenada  –  U.S. invasion of small Caribbean island was condemned by the U.N. General Assembly as “a flagrant violation of international law.” A similar measure in the Security Council “deeply deploring” the invasion got 11 votes but was vetoed by the U.S. Coming eight years after defeat in the unpopular war in Vietnam, this was a small scale, probing invasion to test public and international opinion about aggressive U.S. action.  
  • 1986: Libya  – Air strikes on Col. Gaddafi 185 years after Jefferson’s attack on Tripoli. 
  • 1989–1990: Panama – U.S. killed thousands of innocent civilians in operation to seize Noriega.

First Gulf War

  • 1990–1991:  After deceptively giving a green light to Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, U.S.-led a coalition that invaded Iraq, burying Iraqi soldiers alive with bulldozers and shooting thousands of retreating soldiers in the back. Iraq was driven out of Kuwait. U.S. encouraged Shia and Kurdish rebellions against Saddam but then failed to support them. U.S. left Hussein, who had been a U.S. ally in the 1980s war against Iran, in power.

2000s–2026 (So-Called ‘War on Terror’)

  • 2001–2021: War in Afghanistan – Longest U.S. war, launched to destroy al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban, but failed to do either, ending in ignominious retreat in 2021 after 20 years. Taliban regained power in a U.S. strategic defeat.
  • 2003–2011: Iraq War – Invasion removed Saddam Hussein but led to insurgency, civil war, and rise of ISIS. U.S. achieved regime change but at enormous cost and with unstable long-term outcomes. Now widely seen as one of the greatest strategic blunders in U.S. history.
  • 2000s–present: ‘War on Terror’ (Yemen, Somalia, Syria, etc.) – U.S. allied with al-Qaeda and ISIS to overthrow Syrian government, which after more than a decade of failure, eventually achieving with an al-Qaeda terrorist becoming president. Ongoing drone and special operations continue around the region. “War on Terror” enabled the Patriot Act and warrantless domestic surveillance on Americans.
  • 2011: Libya intervention – Helped oust Gaddafi but contributed to failed state and regional instability.
  • 2014-2026: The U.S. backed coup in Kiev, empowering neo-nazi militias and instigated a civil war against ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine who resisted the coup, because of which, Crimea re-joined Russia. After eight years of deceptive diplomacy, refusal to negotiate a treaty, and threatening renewed attacks by the U.S-proxy, coup government in Kiev, Russia took the bait and invaded in February 2022. After annexing four oblasts, Russia still fights to gain control of all of Donbass, as European drones and long-range missiles strike on an almost daily basis deep inside Russia, putting the outcome of the war in question.
  • 2015-2026: Two phases of U.S.- Israel war of aggression against Iran: the first in June 2025 lasted 12 days. The major war began on Feb. 28, 2026, resulting in assassination of Iranian leaders, but defeat to Iran, whose regime did not fall and which retaliated extensively against U.S. military bases in the region and against Israel. Close of Strait of Hormuz threatens worldwide depression. Israel wants to press on while the U.S. wants a negotiated end to the war, realizing this may have been an even bigger blunder than the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 

Based loosely on a timeline compiled by Grok (built by xAI), which took an almost jingoistic, pro-American point of view, talking about U.S. “successes” and never mentioning the words “defeat” or “failure.” It was edited substantially to more closely reflect reality by Consortium News. Sources include Congressional Research Service reports and standard historical references, and especially William Blum’s Killing Hope.