America's Deadliest Export: Democracy – The Truth about US Foreign Policy and Everything Else

by William Blum

'A fireball of terse information.'
Oliver Stone

'A remarkable collection. Blum concentrates on matters of great current significance, and does not pull his punches. They land, backed with evidence and acute analysis.'
Noam Chomsky

For over sixty-five years, the United States war machine has been on automatic pilot. Since World War II we have been conditioned to believe that America's motives in 'exporting' democracy are honorable, even noble.

In this startling and provocative book, William Blum, a leading dissident chronicler of US foreign policy and the author of controversial bestseller Rogue State, argues that nothing could be further from the truth.

Moreover, unless this fallacy is unlearned, and until people understand fully the worldwide suffering American policy has caused, we will never be able to stop the monster.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, The United States Of America, War, Political Science, American History

370 pages, Kindle Edition

First published July 10, 2014

About the author

Jewish-American writer and critic of US foreign policy.

William Blum got wide media coverage, when his book "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" was recommended by Osama Bin Laden in a speech.

Reviews

[Randall Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

In 1944, Senator Vandenberg asked in the Senate, when the Pentagon was being proposed, “unless the war is to be permanent, why must we have permanent accommodations for war facilities of such size? Or is the war permanent?” General Douglas McArthur said in 1957: “Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear – kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor – with the cry of grave emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet in retrospect, these disasters never seem to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.” “Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.” The Japanese are now in their 72nd year of American Occupation and still there are rapes at Okinawa showing up on CNN news feeds. That we might not “have to” stay there sitting on our almost 800 military bases worldwide making locals hate us, is unthinkable. But, we’ve been in Afghanistan for decades making it unsafe for women to be uncovered, unsafe for kids to play outside. Blum’s thesis is that America says its foreign policy always means well but time and again facts on the ground don’t make it look as if we are there first to help the people. Once you assume “meaning well” is incidental to American foreign policy, then according to Blum, you are free to see the motivations (usually finance or increased perceived power). We keep hearing about “unintended casualties” but our military knows the way America historically fights guarantees civilian casualties, so Blum asks “at what point do you lose the right to say the deaths were …unintended?” America and Israel continue their wars of terror on “terror” because they alone get to define who is a terrorist. Thus, American slavery was never terrorism, nor the genocide of the native American, or Agent Orange, because we did it. If Manning had committed war crimes instead of exposing them, he would have never been imprisoned. Obama not prosecuting Bush officials for torture, means now Trump can do whatever he wants. U.S. missile sorties against Libya since not legally considered as “war”, qualify as murder. What are the two poorest nations in the Americas? Haiti and Nicaragua. Why? They are the two countries in our hemisphere that the U.S. has intervened in and occupied the most. Page after page, you learn why you can’t conclude your government means well just because it says it does. In fact, you will learn that “The Cold War was not a struggle between the Unites States and the Soviet Union. It was a struggle between the United States and the Third World” (blocking political and economic change). The U.S. portrayed the Cold War as a war of ideology, instead it was a war against Human Rights and eradication of poverty. In the 1930’s, Hitler watched closely how the U.S. stayed asleep during the fascist takeover of Spain. From that one event both Hitler and Stalin learned that America’s real enemy was not fascism but the threat of communism. Russia kept getting attacked through Eastern Europe from 1914-1945 yet Americans ignorant of history can’t see why Russia might have wanted to “close that highway down” after WWII. The U.S. violated Yalta in minutes by gross interference with the Greek elections. Blum points out how no one could know what pure Communism or Socialism would look like on this planet because “every socialist experiment of any significance in the past century has been corrupted, subverted, perverted, or destabilized… or crushed, overthrown, bombed, or invaded or otherwise have had life made impossible for it by the United States.” Quiz Time! “Name a single brutal dictator of the second half of the 20th Century that was not supported (and even brought to power) by the United States?” If the U.S. disbanded its military tomorrow, muses Blum, who would invade it? Which country? Instead our military wastes more energy than anyone, while polluting the planet more than anyone. The US bombing of Serbia fits “the classical definition of ‘terrorism’ as used by the FBI, the CIA, and the United Nations: the use or threat of violence against a civilian population to induce the government to change certain policies.” Blum calls it “the most ferocious sustained bombing of a nation in the history of the world” and yet Serbia posed had posed no threat of attack to anyone. “Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia for seventy-eight days and nights in a row.” Bill Clinton the Democrat. To Blum, when Obama deemed Bush’s crimes as of the past as not to be considered, with Obama’s logic, it could be argued that no criminal can be prosecuted because their crimes would be in the past as well. Obama ignored Nuremberg Principles when stating American torturers get a free pass because they were “following orders” and now “Sam Smith has said that Barack Obama is the most conservative Democratic president we’ve ever had. In an earlier time, there would have been a name for him: Republican.” We think American foreign policy means well but if we read Hitler’s official May 21st 1935 speech not knowing the author’s name, we’d assume he meant well too. We worry about violent jihad by Muslims, yet ignore our own history of violent jihad against more than 50 independent nations guilty of only offering the threat of a good example. An amazing book by a brilliant man; Noam Chomsky loves Bill Blum. You will too by reading this and his “Rogue State” and “Killing Hope”…

[John Hatley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a brilliant book, which should be read by everyone, and an attempt should be made to understand it by everyone. Its title says it all. It's a pity Mr Blum is no longer with us. But considering the things that have happened in the world since this book was first published (in 2013) and the things that have happened in the world since he died (in 2018), if he had continued to write about those things — which he almost certainly would have done — he might have been assassinated by now.
I genuinely regret that I didn't first read it in 2013, in which case I could have read it for a second time today.

[Eric W · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book contains strong assertions that I personally subscribe to, but is weak at backing any of them and is overly heavy-handed instead of providing a new, nuanced analysis of our imperialistic foreign policy.

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

While very sympathetic to Blum's arguments I found I simply couldn't read his book – I only delved into various chapters in the hope of finding something I could fully engage with that didn't read like a series of short polemics made up of pasted-together magazine articles. Much of what Blum says is true, but unless he gives the background and the counter-evidence (where it exists) he is often simply asserting truths, and not in a convincing way. He also ranges too widely and (to me) frustratingly: I like reading material with much more depth to it.

[J · Rating 1 out of 5]

While the author has a point--that America has done a great deal of damage in the name of freedom and democracy--any credibility he had is completely undermined by his excessive smarm, sarcasm, and hostility. Most authors in this genre have some sort of agenda, in my experience, but Blum clearly made no effort at trying to even fake a balanced approach. In the end, I could not overcome the editorializing and stopped reading it.

[Lisa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing. The author has a lot to say, and may even have some good points buried in the polemic, but it's difficult to tell given the lack of organization and coherence. The work is presented as a book, but reads more like a collection of short essays or blog posts that have been grouped thematically- but beyond that, they are not in any particular order. (Dates wander backwards and forwards at random.) There are strong assertions made, but little presented to back them up. If you're going to present 'the truth' presumably you don't just expect people to take you at your word.

[Matteo Lauto · Rating 3 out of 5]

while i ideologically align with blum, this book wasn't as in-depth as i wanted it to be at times. it read more like snippets of a blog (which is where i assume lots of the content came from) than a well-researched critical analysis of american foreign policy. i guess i need to read Killing Hope. what i did like was the re-framing of american intervention compared to life before US bombing and decimation. was libya better off under gaddadi vs after US/NATO bombing? most probably. at least they had infrastructure. same with iraq and saddam dare i say. i mean iraq is a pile of rubble now thanks to the USA... nowhere has any country + population actually materially benefitted from any US intervention post-WWII. not to mention all the fascists and dictators and legit mass-murderers (Pol Pot, Pinochet, Suharto) that were propped up + supplied by the US in the last 70+ years... US foreign policy is a nightmare for anyone that isn't American, regardless of who's commander-in-chief. and these atrocities are done in our name!!!

cry count: 0 but the death count in this book is probably in the millions thanks to the good ol' US of A

[Deb W · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first time I've given more than two stars to a book that I've left unfinished. William Blum deserves all five stars for the courage he's shown in writing it, and for having the intestinal fortitude to continue to fight the wrongs -- indeed hold the HOPE, that he might make a change.

At the risk of comparing myself to a flower, I have to say that I've withered in the face of the facts he's presented much like a potted flower collapses when watered with toxic waste. Indeed, toxic waste might be easier to read about than the results of OUR US foreign policy over the decades.

Fighting for Democracy? Please, I will never be able to look anyone saying that to me in the face. If I were of the type that can memorize facts and re-tell them upon provocation -- I would not for the simple matter that these facts cannot be stomached. KNOWING now what WE've done to destroy democratic governments, destroy the lives of civilians (especially those helpless aged, women, and children), and actually promote oppression and trafficking of drugs, weapons, and human life -- that's right, SLAVERY.

Worse, it's destroyed MY belief in OUR democracy. Even after all the disappointments I've had watching American politics I've still been naive enough to think that my vote and my voice would make a change. Now I learn that even those people I've thought were standing for what is right and good in the world -- well, were NOT.

Sadly, there's no place to go. We've created enemies on every continent with our actions. And NO, George W. -- they don't hate us for our freedoms, unless you count the liberties we've taken with their lives. I'm not sure that even if we decided to actually become altruistic and spend all the trillions of dollars we gained through our pillage and rape to help the countries we've destroyed -- that would not even be enough.

[Niklas Pivic · Rating 3 out of 5]

The introduction to this book snared me - as well as an endorsement of the book, courtesy of Noam Chomsky:

INTRODUCTION

The secret to understanding US foreign policy is that there is no secret. Principally, one must come to the realization that the United States strives to dominate the world, for which end it is prepared to use any means necessary. Once one understands that, much of the apparent confusion, contradiction, and ambiguity surrounding Washington’s policies fades away. To express this striving for dominance numerically, one can consider that since the end of World War II the United States has

•    endeavored to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected
•    grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries
•    attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders
•    dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries
•    attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.

In total: since 1945, the United States has carried out one or more of the above-listed actions, on one or more occasions, in seventy-one countries (more than one-third of the countries of the world), in the process of which the US has ended the lives of several million people, condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair, and has been responsible for the torture of countless thousands. US foreign policy has likely earned the hatred of most of the people in the world who are able to more or less follow current news events and are familiar with a bit of modern history.

Well. This is quite the contrast to the current reports of ISIS (Islamic State), another horrid, squalid terroristic band.

Blum is good at making us remember history, not merely as told by the so-called victors.

Also, his best talent in this book, is displaying propaganda as what it really is by contrasting it. An example:

All countries, it is often argued, certainly all powerful countries, have always acted belligerent and militaristic, so why condemn the United States so much? But that is like arguing that since one can find anti-Semitism in every country, why condemn Nazi Germany? Obviously, it’s a question of magnitude.

[...]

After the attacks of September 11, 2001 many Americans acquired copies of the Quran in an attempt to understand why Muslims could do what they did. One can wonder, following the invasion of Iraq, whether Iraqis bought Christian bibles in search of an explanation of why the most powerful nation on the planet had laid such terrible waste to their ancient land, which had done no harm to the United States.

Also, letting persons of interest display their own thoughts is often an extremely interesting thing:

Future president Theodore Roosevelt, who fought in Cuba at the turn of the last century with the greatest of gung-ho-ism, wrote: ‘It is for the good of the world that the English-speaking race in all its branches should hold as much of the world’s surface as possible.’

Apropos why the USA is being attacked:

The American people are very much like the children of a Mafia boss who do not know what their father does for a living, and don’t want to know, but then wonder why someone just threw a firebomb through the living room window.

On what the duality of the two main political parties of the USA really mean:

One reason for confusion among the electorate is that the two main parties, the Democrats and Republicans, while forever throwing charges and counter-charges at each other, actually hold indistinguishable views concerning foreign policy, a similarity that is one of the subjects of this book. What is the poor voter to make of all this? Apropos of this we have the view of the American electoral system from a foreigner, Cuban leader Raúl Castro. He has noted that the United States pits two identical parties against one another, and joked that a choice between a Republican and Democrat is like choosing between himself and his brother Fidel. ‘We could say in Cuba we have two parties: one led by Fidel and one led by Raúl, what would be the difference?’ he asked. ‘That’s the same thing that happens in the United States … both are the same. Fidel is a little taller than me, he has a beard and I don’t.’

Some background info on why the Marshall Plan is to be considered not entirely about help and altruism:

Suppressing the left all over Western Europe, most notably sabotaging the Communist parties in France and Italy in their bids for legal, non-violent, electoral victory. Marshall Plan funds were secretly siphoned off to finance this endeavor, and the promise of aid to a country, or the threat of its cutoff, was used as a bullying club; indeed, France and Italy would certainly have been exempted from receiving aid if they had not gone along with the plots to exclude the Communists from any kind of influential role.

[...]

The CIA also skimmed large amounts of Marshall Plan funds to covertly maintain cultural institutions, journalists, and publishers, at home and abroad, for the omnipresent and heated propaganda of the Cold War; the selling of the Marshall Plan to the American public and elsewhere was entwined with fighting ‘the red menace’. Moreover, in their covert operations, CIA personnel at times used the Marshall Plan as cover, and one of the Plan’s chief architects, Richard Bissell, then moved to the CIA, stopping off briefly at the Ford Foundation, a long-time conduit for CIA covert funds. ’Twas one big happy, scheming family.

[...]

The great bulk of Marshall Plan funds returned to the United States, or never left, being paid directly to American corporations to purchase American goods. The US Agency for International Development (AID) stated in 1999: ‘The principal beneficiary of America’s foreign assistance programs has always been the United States.’

On Yugoslavia, and the Clinton administration's record-breaking bombing:

Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia for seventy-eight days and nights in a row. His military and political policies destroyed one of the most progressive countries in Europe. And he called it ‘humanitarian intervention.’ It’s still regarded by almost all Americans, including many, if not most, ‘progressives,’ as just that. Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.

[...]

In 1999, NATO (primarily the United States) bombed the Yugoslav republic of Serbia for seventy-eight consecutive days, ruining the economy, the ecology, power supply, bridges, apartment buildings, transportation, infrastructure, churches, schools, pushing the country many years back in its development, killing hundreds or thousands of people, traumatizing countless children, who’ll be reacting unhappily to certain sounds and sights for perhaps the remainder of their days; the most ferocious sustained bombing of a nation in the history of the world, at least up to that time. Nobody has ever suggested that Serbia had attacked or was preparing to attack a member state of NATO, and that is the only event which justifies a reaction under the NATO treaty.

Speaking of NATO, a clear-headed thought:

If NATO had never existed, what argument could be given today in favor of creating such an institution?

Another clear-headed one-liner:

Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow produce the most good.

...plus:

What do the CEOs do all day that they should earn a thousand times more than schoolteachers, nurses, firefighters, street cleaners, and social workers? Reread some medieval history, about feudal lords and serfs.

...and:

The more you care about others, the more you’re at a disadvantage competing in the capitalist system.

...also:

Communist governments take over companies. Under capitalism, the companies take over the government.

And on the Obama administration:

As we’ll see from State Department cables in the WikiLeaks chapter, the Obama administration renewed military ties with Indonesia in spite of serious concerns expressed by American diplomats that the Indonesian military’s human rights abuses in the province of West Papua were stoking unrest in the region. The United States also overturned a ban on training the Indonesian Kopassus army special forces – despite the Kopassus’s long history of arbitrary detention, torture, and murder – after the Indonesian president threatened to derail President Obama’s trip to the country in November 2010.

On Guantánamo:

It was recently disclosed that an Iraqi resident of Britain is being released from Guantánamo after four years. His crime? He refused to work as an informer for the CIA and MI5, the British security service. His business partner is still being held in Guantánamo, for the same crime.

[...]

David Hicks is a 31–year-old Australian who in a plea-bargain with a US military court served nine months in prison, largely in Australia. That was after five years at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, without being charged with a crime, without a trial, without a conviction. Under the deal, Hicks agreed not to talk to reporters for one year (a terrible slap in the face of free speech), to forever waive any profit from telling his story (a slap – mon Dieu! – in the face of free enterprise), to submit to US interrogation and testify at future US trials or international tribunals (an open invitation to the US government to hound the young man for the rest of his life), to renounce any claims of mistreatment or unlawful detention (a requirement which would be unconstitutional in a civilian US court). ‘If the United States were not ashamed of its conduct, it wouldn’t hide behind a gag order,’ said Hicks’s attorney Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union.

About Iraq, it's interesting to read facts as opposed to prejudice about what life was like, before and after the first American invasion:

Women’s rights, previously enjoyed, fell under great danger of being subject to harsh Islamic law. There is today a Shiite religious ruling class in Iraq, which tolerates physical attacks on women for showing a bare arm or for picnicking with a male friend. Men can be harassed for wearing shorts in public, as can children playing outside in shorts.

On Julian Assange and Sweden:

One further consequence of Assange’s predicament may be to put an end to the widespread belief that Sweden, or the Swedish government, is peaceful, progressive, neutral, and independent. Stockholm’s behavior in this matter and others has been as American-poodle-like as London’s, as it lined itself up with an Assange accuser who has been associated with right-wing anti-Castro Cubans, who are of course US-government-supported. This is the same Sweden that for some time in recent years was working with the CIA on its torture-rendition flights and has about 500 soldiers in Afghanistan. Sweden is the world’s largest per capita arms exporter, and for years has taken part in US/NATO military exercises, some within its own territory. The left should get themselves a new nation to admire. Try Cuba.

However, Blum's sexist approach to rape charges against Assange make for a very, very sad read:

There’s also the old stereotype held by Americans of Scandinavians practicing a sophisticated and tolerant attitude toward sex, an image that was initiated, or enhanced, by the celebrated 1967 Swedish film I Am Curious (Yellow), which had been banned for a while in the United States. And now what do we have? Sweden sending Interpol on an international hunt for a man who apparently upset two women, perhaps for no more than sleeping with them both in the same week.

By quickly googling some, ending up at, for example, The Enliven Project, one quickly finds that there's greater risk of being hit by lightning than being falsely accused of rape. The two women did not know each other, and have rendered quite similar stories of how Assange purportedly assaulted them. Blum's "no more than sleeping with them both in the same week" is as tragic as reading how he deals with the US government's downplays, for example, when writing about Guantanámo inmates.

So, sadly, there is a waft and complete shame about Blum's writing on women. It's really beyond sad.

However, his humanitarian views beyond that seems OK, which feels tainted to say.

‘We came, we saw, he died.’ The words of US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, giggling, as she spoke of the depraved murder of Muammar Gaddafi.

Or this:

This also really happened: Jay Leno on his August 7, 2006 television program: ‘There’s news of a major medical crisis from Cuba concerning Fidel Castro. It looks like he’s getting better.’ Think of a US president battling a serious ailment and a broadcaster on Cuban TV making such a remark.

Like I stated, Blum’s way of contrasting statements by displaying how they’d look through someone else’s mouth is one of his his fortés.

On the "Cuban missile crisis", which shows the necessity for Iran to acquire nuclear arms to preserve their peace:

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, historian and adviser to President Kennedy, termed it ‘the most dangerous moment in human history.’ But I’ve never believed that. Such a fear is based on the belief that either or both of the countries was ready and willing to unleash their nuclear weapons against the other. However, this was never in the cards because of MAD – mutually assured destruction. By 1962, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union had grown so large and sophisticated that neither superpower could entirely destroy the other’s retaliatory force by launching a missile first, even with a surprise attack. Retaliation was certain, or certain enough. Starting a nuclear war was committing suicide. If the Japanese had had nuclear bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been destroyed.

Also, on that "crisis":

John Gerassi, professor of political science at Queens College in New York City, wrote a letter to the New York Times: To the Editor, In his ‘A Spy Confesses’ (Week in Review, September 21, 2008), Sam Roberts claims that folks ‘fiercely loyal to the far left believed that the Rosenbergs were not guilty…’ I am and have always been, since my stint as a correspondent and editor in Latin America for Time and Newsweek, a ‘far leftist,’ and I have never claimed the Rosenbergs were not guilty. Nor have any of my ‘far leftist’ friends. What we always said, and what I repeat to my students every semester, is that ‘if they were guilty, they are this planet’s great heroes.’ My explanation is quite simple: The US had a first-strike policy, the USSR did not (until Gorbachev). In 1952, the US military, and various intelligence services, calculated that a first strike on all Soviet silos would wipe out all but 6 percent of Russian atomic missiles (and, we now know, create enough radiation to kill us all). But those 6 percent would automatically be fired at US cities. The military then calculated what would happen if one made a direct hit on Denver (why they chose Denver and not New York or Washington was never explained). Their finding: 200,000 would die immediately, two million within a month. They concluded that it was not worth it. In other words, I tell my students, you were born and I am alive because the USSR had a deterrent against our ‘preventive’ attack, not the other way around. And if it is true that the Rosenbergs helped the Soviets get that deterrent, they end up among the planet’s saviors. John Gerassi It will not come as a great surprise to learn that the New York Times did not allow such thoughts to appear in its exalted pages.

Some thinking words on sexuality and US politics:

‘Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?’ was the question posed to presidential candidate Bill Richardson by singer Melissa Etheridge. ‘It’s a choice,’ replied the New Mexico governor at the August 9, 2007 forum for Democratic candidates. Etheridge then said to Richardson, ‘Maybe you didn’t understand the question,’ and she rephrased it. Richardson again said he thought it was a choice.6 The next time you hear someone say that homosexuality is a choice, ask them how old they were when they chose to be heterosexual. When they admit that they never made such a conscious choice, the next question to the person should be: ‘So only homosexuals choose to be homosexual? Heterosexuals do not choose to be heterosexual? But what comes first, being homosexual so you can make the choice, or making the choice and thus becoming homosexual?’

Blum delivers very severe and well-deserved critique to Obama. Examples:

When, in 2005, the other Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin, stuck his neck out and compared American torture at Guantánamo to ‘Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings,’ and was angrily denounced by the right wing, Obama stood up in the Senate and… defended him? No, he joined the critics, thrice calling Durbin’s remark a ‘mistake.’

Since taking office in January 2005, he has voted to approve almost every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state despite her complicity in the Bush administration’s false justifications for going to war in Iraq. In doing so, he lacked the courage of twelve of his Democratic Party Senate colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

[...] keep in mind that as a US Senate candidate in 2004 he threatened missile strikes against Iran[...]

Another prominent Obama adviser – from a list entirely and depressingly establishment-imperial – is Madeleine Albright, who played key roles in the merciless bombings of Iraq and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Is anyone keeping count? I am. Libya makes six. Six countries that Barack H. Obama has waged war against in his twenty-six months in office. (To anyone who disputes that dropping bombs on a populated land is an act of war, I would ask what they think of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.) America’s first black president has now waged war in Africa. Is there anyone left who still thinks that Barack Obama is some kind of improvement over George W. Bush?

I could go through the Cairo speech and point out line by line all the political and moral shortcomings, the plain nonsense, and the rest. (‘I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States.’ No mention of it being outsourced to various countries, likely including the very country in which he was speaking. ‘No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.’ But this is precisely what the United States is trying to do concerning Iran and North Korea.

All in all, Blum is bitter, yes, but he's got his head where it should be, apart from where women are, apparently, being dealt with. His words on the Assange affair taint the entire book, but other than that, it's a good book, although more fractured than, say, a Chomsky book would be.

[Carlos Martinez · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. "America's Deadliest Export", a collection of Blum's essays on all matters related to US imperialism, makes for an interesting and thought-provoking read, and may well produce some eureka moments for those with any vestigial attachment to the idea that the US is fundamentally a force for good in the world. Harbouring no such illusions, I didn't get as much out of this book as I did out of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II, which should be compulsory reading.

I'm always surprised to find myself agreeing with nearly everything someone writes. Blum is remarkable for having broken entirely free of the intellectual framework of US nationalism; this frees him up to develop a nuanced and realistic view of global history, without the unstated Eurocentrism that usually lies beneath the surface of western history books. His treatment of the Cold War is particularly good.

The insistence on Obama being every bit as bad as George W Bush strikes me as unhelpful, especially in the current era where Making America Great Again represents a creeping fascism and an increasingly aggressive, unhinged foreign policy. Bourgeois democracy is pretty bad, but there's worse. Also, Blum's little foray into Malthusianism is unexpected and unwelcome.

Minor criticisms aside, it's a useful book, and Bill Blum will be much missed.

[Mike Lisanke · Rating 1 out of 5]

So We know Why Blum is sick and tired of patriotism... It's because he's not (and never was) patriotic to US. And Blum is the worse propagandist Because he hides in plain view. Claiming to be Just Anti-War, And Anti-Military Industrial Complex. he is much more. He's anti-Capitalism and Pro-death and for Socialism And Communism and any other kind of ism which includes autocratic control of people... Especially he loves pictures of warm climates in the Caribbean and South America where the local dictator guarantees a wonderful time for socialist tourism; As long as you're not part of their countries serfdom, you can play on their beaches and stay in the beautiful hotels. They'll even provide armed security against the counter insurgency!

OMG, At least put Something About this author's bias in the book's description. Truth in advertising for goodness sakes.

[GreyAtlas · Rating 2 out of 5]

A radical highly opinionated piece of trash reads that attacks every American soldier, politician, and war the US has ever produced in modern history. Shamelessly. I believe Blum was on cocaine when he wrote this.

[Tam Linton · Rating 5 out of 5]

ironically, I'd follow William Blum into battle.

[Musharrat Zahin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a collection of essays covering subjects ranging from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran to Cuba, Latin America, Yugoslavia, Libya, the Cold War, the media, capitalism, and American patriotism. Although the book moves across different countries and historical periods, its central argument remains consistent: the United States often describes its actions through the language of democracy, freedom, human rights, and national security, while its actual behavior is frequently shaped by power, strategic interests, economic priorities, and the desire to maintain American influence around the world.

The usual story is familiar. A foreign government is described as authoritarian, dangerous, or a threat to its own people. American officials then announce that the United States has a responsibility to protect civilians, defend freedom, or preserve international security. Once that moral argument is accepted, military intervention, economic sanctions, covert operations, or support for an opposition movement become easier to justify to the public.

In my opinion, the book is strongest when it shows how humanitarian concerns can sometimes be exaggerated or selectively emphasized. This does not mean that every government targeted by the United States was innocent, democratic, or harmless. It means that humanitarian concern has not always been the only reason for intervention, and sometimes it may not even have been the main reason.

The Power of Anti-Communism

For decades, the United States had one extremely powerful word with which it could explain almost any foreign intervention: communism.

During the Cold War, a government did not have to be controlled by the Soviet Union to become suspicious in Washington. It could become a target simply by pursuing land reform, nationalizing foreign-owned companies, strengthening labor rights, or seeking an independent economic and diplomatic path.

This is why Blum believes that many Cold War conflicts were not really about defending democracy from a global communist conspiracy. They were often about preventing governments from adopting political and economic systems that challenged American influence or provided an alternative to capitalism.

The United States frequently presented itself as the defender of freedom while supporting dictatorships that were strongly anti-communist. At the same time, elected governments that pursued socialist or nationalist policies could be treated as dangerous even when they had come to power through legal elections.

This raises one of the most important questions in the book: what happens when a country actually holds elections, but the result produces a government that Washington dislikes?

Brazil and the Overthrow of João Goulart

João Goulart became president during a period of intense political conflict and promoted social and economic reforms that were viewed with suspicion by Brazil’s conservative elites and the United States. He was not a revolutionary dictator, nor was he leading Brazil into a straightforward Soviet alliance. He was a left-leaning president whose policies threatened established political and economic interests.

The United States became increasingly concerned about Goulart’s government. Declassified American documents show that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations discussed ways to pressure him and prepared to support the Brazilian military if a coup became necessary. President Lyndon Johnson instructed his advisers to take steps that would support the overthrow if required.

The military eventually took power in 1964, and Brazil remained under military rule for more than two decades. The dictatorship restricted political opposition, censored the press, imprisoned opponents, and used torture.

This case is important because it shows that Washington’s concern was not simply whether Brazil was democratic. The deeper concern was whether Brazil would remain politically and economically aligned with the United States.

Chile and Salvador Allende

Salvador Allende was democratically elected in 1970 and attempted to move Chile toward socialism through constitutional and electoral means. His government nationalized important industries, expanded social programs, and challenged the influence of foreign corporations.

The United States considered Allende’s government dangerous, not necessarily because Chile was about to attack America, but because a successful elected socialist government could become an example for other countries. If socialism could operate through democratic institutions and win popular support, it might influence political movements elsewhere in Latin America and Europe.

The United States opposed Allende and secretly supported efforts to weaken his government. Declassified documents have since provided extensive evidence of American covert involvement during the Allende years, including attempts to destabilize Chile politically and economically.

On September 11, 1973, the Chilean military overthrew Allende. He died during the attack on the presidential palace, and General Augusto Pinochet established a military dictatorship that lasted for years.

The consequences were severe. Thousands of people were killed or disappeared, many more were imprisoned or tortured, and political parties, trade unions, and independent media were suppressed.

Chile is one of the strongest examples supporting Blum’s central argument. The United States did not undermine Allende because Chile lacked democracy. It undermined him because Chile’s democratic government was attempting to follow an economic path that Washington considered dangerous.

The Marshall Plan and American Influence

The Marshall Plan genuinely helped rebuild postwar Europe. Between 1948 and 1952, the United States provided large-scale economic assistance to Western European countries whose economies and infrastructure had been devastated by World War II. The plan helped restore production, trade, industrial capacity, and economic stability.

The plan also served American strategic interests. It helped strengthen capitalism at a time when socialist ideas and Communist parties had considerable public support. It opened European markets to American products, strengthened cooperation among Western European states, and helped create the political environment in which institutions such as NATO could develop.

Marshall Plan assistance also came with conditions. Washington gained influence over how funds were used and opposed policies that appeared too socialist, including extensive nationalization and welfare measures.

This does not mean that the Marshall Plan was fake or useless. It means that humanitarian assistance and geopolitical strategy operated together. The United States helped rebuild Europe, but it also helped shape the political and economic direction that Europe would follow.

Iraq and the Collapse of the Official Justification

The Bush administration repeatedly presented Saddam Hussein as a major threat and emphasized Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction. Officials warned that Iraq possessed chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear capabilities and suggested that Saddam Hussein’s regime was connected to international terrorism. The invasion began in March 2003 under the promise that the United States was removing a dangerous dictator and making the world safer.

The Iraq Survey Group later investigated more than one thousand suspected sites. It concluded that Iraq did not possess the significant chemical, biological, or nuclear stockpiles that had been presented to the American public as a central reason for war. The investigation did find that Saddam’s regime had retained ambitions and some knowledge related to future weapons development, but this was very different from possessing active stockpiles that posed an imminent threat.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and Iraq was not a democratic or peaceful country. However, the brutality of his government did not prove that Iraq possessed the imminent threat used to justify invasion. It also did not automatically give the United States the legal right to overthrow the government.

The invasion destroyed much of Iraq’s existing political order. The Iraqi army was disbanded, state institutions weakened, and a large security vacuum emerged. Sectarian conflict intensified, militias became more powerful, millions of Iraqis were displaced, and the occupation produced torture scandals and widespread destruction.

Removing Saddam did not magically transform Iraq into a stable democracy. Instead, the collapse of the state created conditions in which extremist organizations could expand. The war was sold as a way of making the world safer. In reality, it helped create the political instability that allowed new extremist movements to grow.

Sanctions and the Human Cost of Policy

The sanctions restricted Iraq’s access to medicine, food, industrial equipment, and materials needed to repair water and electricity systems. The country’s public-health infrastructure deteriorated, and ordinary civilians suffered most severely.

One of the most disturbing moments came when journalist Lesley Stahl asked Madeleine Albright whether the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children were worth the cost. Albright replied that the price was worth it. Blum uses this exchange to expose a serious moral contradiction. American officials often claim that every human life is precious, but the lives of foreign civilians are frequently treated as acceptable costs when a policy is considered strategically necessary.

The difference between how American lives and foreign lives are discussed is one of the book’s most powerful themes. A government cannot convincingly claim to value human life while treating the deaths of foreign children as a tolerable consequence of economic pressure.

Afghanistan and the Return of the Taliban

The Afghanistan discussion connects the post-9/11 war to the earlier Soviet war in Afghanistan. During the Soviet occupation from 1979 to 1989, the United States supported the Afghan Mujahideen with money, weapons, training, and other assistance. The CIA describes this program as one of its major Cold War covert operations. The initial objective was to make the Soviet occupation as costly as possible, although American support later contributed to the rebels’ eventual victory.

After the September 11 attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban government that had sheltered Osama bin Laden. The Taliban were removed from power relatively quickly, but the conflict continued for another twenty years.

The United States eventually left Afghanistan in 2021, after two decades of war and occupation. The Taliban returned to power almost immediately. That does not prove that the entire intervention had no legitimate purpose. The Taliban government had sheltered al-Qaeda, and the September 11 attacks created a genuine security crisis. However, the outcome makes it difficult to ignore Blum’s central question: can a foreign military occupation create a political system that the local population considers legitimate? The war produced civilian casualties, corruption, dependence on warlords, detention without trial, drone strikes, and repeated military operations that damaged local trust.

The United States attempted to defeat the Taliban through military force while supporting a government that many Afghans viewed as dependent on foreigners. The longer the occupation continued, the easier it became for the Taliban to present themselves as a movement of national resistance.

Iran and the History Behind the Conflict

The modern US-Iranian conflict cannot be understood without remembering the 1953 coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.

Mosaddegh had nationalized Iran’s oil industry, challenging British and Western control over Iranian resources. The CIA and British intelligence supported a coup that removed him and strengthened the position of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The Shah became a close American ally, but his government was authoritarian and relied heavily on secret police, censorship, and political repression. The 1979 Iranian Revolution overthrew the Shah and transformed Iran into one of the strongest opponents of American influence in the Middle East.

Since then, Iran has remained a major regional power with its own political, military, and economic ambitions.

The nuclear issue is serious. Iran’s nuclear program has created genuine international security concerns, and Blum does not eliminate that issue entirely. However, he asks why Washington treats Iran differently from countries with their own nuclear capabilities or from governments that are strategically friendly to the United States.

Iran’s importance is not limited to nuclear technology. It also comes from its oil resources, geographical position, regional alliances, relationship with Russia and China, and opposition to American influence.

The Iranian case shows how historical memories shape present conflicts. Iran remembers the overthrow of Mosaddegh and decades of American support for the Shah. The United States remembers the hostage crisis and Iran’s later opposition to American allies. Each side interprets the other through a history of distrust.

Yugoslavia and the Contradiction of Humanitarian War


Serbian and Yugoslav forces committed serious abuses against Kosovar Albanians. Human Rights Watch documented killings, torture, rape, forced expulsions, and other war crimes committed between March and June 1999.

At the same time, NATO’s 78-day bombing campaign also killed civilians. Human Rights Watch documented approximately 500 Yugoslav civilian deaths in around ninety incidents. This creates an uncomfortable moral problem. If a military alliance bombs a country to protect civilians but its bombing also kills civilians, what exactly makes the intervention humanitarian?

This does not mean NATO and Serbian forces were morally equivalent. They were not. Serbian and Yugoslav forces committed serious crimes against Kosovar Albanians, and those crimes should not be minimized. However, the existence of Serbian crimes does not automatically make every NATO action legal, wise, or harmless. Humanitarian language cannot remove the need to examine civilian deaths caused by the intervention itself.

The Kosovo Liberation Army also complicates the story. The KLA had been associated with attacks on civilians, organized crime, drug trafficking, and militant networks. Yet once it became useful against Serbia, it was treated as a strategic partner.

Blum’s larger point is that the United States often applies human-rights principles selectively. Crimes committed by enemies are treated as proof of their essential evil. Crimes committed by allies are treated as unfortunate complications.

Libya and the Failure to Rebuild

The intervention in Libya began during the Arab Spring in 2011. Western governments claimed that Muammar Gaddafi was preparing to massacre civilians in Benghazi. The United Nations authorized measures to protect civilians, but NATO’s operation eventually helped the rebels defeat Gaddafi’s government.

The intervention also revealed a striking change in Western policy. Before the uprising, Western governments and intelligence agencies had cooperated with Gaddafi’s government, including in efforts against Libyan dissidents. His authoritarianism was tolerated when he was useful and condemned when he became a target.

Gaddafi was captured and killed in October 2011. Hillary Clinton’s reaction, “We came, we saw, he died,” became for Blum a symbol of the triumphal attitude behind humanitarian language.

The consequences of intervention were severe. Libya did not develop a stable political order after Gaddafi’s removal. Rival governments, militias, armed groups, and foreign-backed factions competed for territory, resources, and legitimacy.

Recent United Nations reporting continues to describe Libya as trapped in political dysfunction, with weakened institutions and recurring disputes over power since the collapse of Gaddafi’s regime.

This does not mean that Gaddafi should have remained in power forever. His government was authoritarian and responsible for serious abuses. It means that removing a dictator and successfully rebuilding a country are two completely different achievements.

Latin America and the Meaning of Independence

In Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Cuba, and other Latin American countries, the United States repeatedly became involved in the politics of countries thousands of kilometres away.

The governments targeted by Washington were not all identical. Some were socialist, some nationalist, some reformist, and some simply wanted greater control over their own land, industries, and resources.

For Blum, the word independence is often more useful than the word communism. Many Latin American governments were not trying to become Soviet satellites. They wanted to nationalize industries, redistribute land, strengthen labor rights, or conduct foreign policy without American supervision.

That alone could be enough to place them on Washington’s wrong side.

The United States often treated Latin America as its own strategic neighbourhood. Governments that challenged American corporations or encouraged regional independence were treated as threats to hemispheric security.

This explains why Washington could support a military dictatorship in one country while opposing an elected reformist government in another.

Cuba and the Fear of an Alternative

After the 1959 revolution, the United States attempted to isolate Fidel Castro’s government through economic pressure, covert operations, exile groups, assassination plots, and invasion attempts. The Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 failed. Instead of overthrowing Castro, it strengthened his position and pushed Cuba closer to the Soviet Union.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is usually remembered as a story about Soviet missiles being placed in Cuba. However, from the Cuban perspective, there was also a real fear of another American invasion. The United States had already tried to overthrow Castro and continued to treat Cuba as a hostile revolutionary state.

None of this means Cuba became a democratic paradise. Political repression, restrictions on opposition, and limits on freedom of expression were real. These problems should not be ignored simply because American policy toward Cuba was also destructive.

Blum’s argument is that the United States applied human-rights standards selectively. It condemned Cuba while tolerating governments that were more violent and authoritarian, provided they remained friendly to Washington.

Cuba threatened the United States not o

[Sovatha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before you start reading this book, you should be warned that whatever you learned and understood about the US of A might not be the same after you finish reading it. Everything you come to understand about this super power might have been fed through corporate media outlets one way or another. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that whatever was fed to you might not be the whole picture of what you should know. Well, at least that's what William Blum will be telling you in this book. You might have doubts about those sources that Blum based his arguments or statements on, but as any book written and published, you are welcomed to dig through those sources before you come to believe if they are legitimate or not (I didn't do the digging and I prefer it that way). If you have those doubts, you should also ask why such an anti-American book is allowed to be published in the US in the first place. Blum also addresses that point in the book too. Don't be discouraged by the 338 page size of the book. It's a very easy read, a compilation of various essays written throughout a period of time. Therefore, you don't need to read the whole book in continuity. Overall, I found the book a enjoyable read. Just remember to read something else on pro-US or anti-China after you read this, and your views will be balanced again.

[Ramil Kazımov · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amerikan demokrasisinin dünya için neye mal olduğunu anlamaya çalışanlar çok iyi bir çalışma ürünü ! Demokrasi bombalarının laik yönetimləri alt etdiği ve yerine laik olmayan rejimleri getirdiğini bilmek için bu kitabı okuyunuz. Sübut mu ?? Afganistan, Irak, Libya, Bolivya, Guatemala ve daha başka ülkeler.. Amerikan dış politikasının bu ülkelerde mal olduğu zararları ve demokrasi ihracının ne kadar iğrenç bir "false flag" olduğunu anlayacaksınız. William Blum gerçek bir deha. Her şeyi o kadar detaylı ve açık anlatıyor ki, aynı zamanda her sözünü kaynaklarla veriyor. Bizim oldukça yanlış anladığımız her şeyi gozler önüne seriyor. Gerçekleri bilmeniz için mutlaka okumanız gereken bir kitap !

[Adriyan Achda · Rating 4 out of 5]

saya baca buku ini karena tertarik sama judulnya dan mbah sujiwo tejo juga baca. penulis buku ini adalah seorang anti-mainstream kebangsaan amerika yang selama ini mengkritisi kebijakan2 luar negeri pemerintahannya sendiri. amerika yang bangga dengan tag 'demokratis dan kebebasan' malah ikut campur dalam banyak penggulingan pemimpin nasional yang dipilih melalui pemilu yang demokratis. pada akhirnya amerika hanya mengatur dunia untuk keuntungannya sendiri.

gaya penulisannya menarik dengan beberapa lelucon sinis dan ofensif.

[Eileen Wood · Rating 3 out of 5]

"What do American leaders mean by democracy? The last thing they have in mind is any kind of economic democracy - the closing of the gap between the desperate poor and those for whom too much is not enough. The first thing they have in mind is making sure the target country has the political, financial, and legal mechanisms in place to make it hospitable to corporate globalization."

This was an interesting book; written with a sarcastic tone which weakened its journalistic credibility yet made it livelier to read.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bit more flamboyant and loose than Phil Agee, but some good facts here and there none the less. I would probably have preferred one of his books intended to be books rather than this collection of blog posts.

Hating ameriKKKa is a good thing

[Priest Apostate · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would recommend this to anyone wanting to find out about our impact upon the people of the world.

[Vivek Singh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read! Refer to my other reviews on works of Blum.

[Yalçın · Rating 4 out of 5]

Özetle bu kitabı okumak için sadece dış politikaya ilgili olmanıza gerek yok. Çünkü söz konusu Abd ise olay artık iç politikadır;)

Detayda ise;
Kitabın yazarı William Blum amerikan dış politikası konusunda uzman olarak tanıtılıyor. 1967’de ABD’nin Vietnam’daki eylemlerin yüzünden Abd Dışişleri Bakanlığındaki görevinden istifa etmiş.

Bu kitaptan önce yazdığı Haydut Devlet kitabını 2006’da Usame bin Ladin bir kasetinde konu etmiş ve Amerikan vatandaşlarının asıl düşmanlarını öğrenmeleri için tavsiye etmiş. Ardından da yazarın kitabı satış rekorları kırmış.

Emperyalizmin; daha da kötüsü Amerikan emperyalizminin korkunç etkilerini, Abd’nin dünyanın sahibiymiş gibi az gelişmiş, gelişmekte olan ülkelerdeki küstahça eylemlerini az çok biliyoruz. Bu kitapta ise örnekler belgeler ve detaylar güzel bir şekilde konsolide edilmiş.

Aklımda kalanlar/not aldıklarım;
- Abd vatandaşları kendi ülkeleri dışındaki dünyadan bilgi anlamında tamamen izoleler. Yani X bir ülke ile ilgili çok kısıtlı bilgileri var . Tabi yönetim bu durumun nedeni ve uygulayıcısı. Sistematik bir şekilde vatandaşlarının beyinleri yıkanıyor.
- “yurtseverlik” bilinci pompalanıyor sürekli. Bu yurtseverlik ile ilgili Bernard Shaw’ın şu güzel sözü de not düşülmüş ;” yurtseverlik, burada doğmuş olduğunuz için bu ülkenin tüm diğer ülkelerden üstün olduğuna inanmaktır” .
-Basın asla özgür değil ve bu beyin yıkamanın en önemli aktörü.
- Amerika milliyetçiliği her organizasyon veya ortamda pompalanıyor( spor, gösteri v.s ). En çok kullanılan söylemler “ biz Amerikayız” ,” Biz Amerikalılar özel, seçilmiş insanlarız” gibi söylemler.
-1950’lerden sonra az veya gelişmekte olan tüm ülkelerin iç işlerine karışmış, direkt veya dolaylı müdahalelerde bulunmuş.
- Müdahale ettiği neredeyse tüm ülkelerde yönetimler eğer çıkarlarına uygun politika uygulamıyorsa ( ülke refahı açısından iyi bir yönetim olsa dahi) önce yönetimi itibarsızlaştırılıp , destekledikleri muhalif bir adayı doğal yollar ile getirmeye çalışıyorlar. Bunu başaramazlar ise -ki genelde böyle oluyor- o ülkenin askeriyesi ile yönetime el koyduruyorlar. Sonra bu yönetime silah satıyorlar. Halk huzursuzlanıyor ve devamında barış götürmek üzere bu ülkeye asker gönderip kaynaklarına ve geleceğine ambargo koyuyorlar.
- Özgürlük götürdüklerini, “diktatörce “ yönetildiklerini söyledikleri ve müdahale ettikleri ülkelerde ( Ortadoğudaki en kapalı ülkelerde dahi) halklar getirilen “özgürlük” öncesi yönetimleri arar olmuş. Bunun çok sayıda örneği var. Irak, Libya , Mısır, Afganistan, Somali, Yemen, Lübnan, Malezya ,Pakistan, Güney Amerika , v.s ,v.s , v.s, v.s.
Hatta haritada yerini bulamayacağımız, ismini dahi bilmediğimiz ülkeler bile Abd’nin müdahalelerine maruz kalmış.
- Örneğin Afganistan’da laik ve kadın hakları savunucusu hükümet devrildi ve baskıcı , radikal Taliban’ın iş başına gelmesine yol açıldı. Sonra Afganistan’ın işgali için Taliban’ın katı yönetimi bir neden olarak kullanıldı.
-Diktatör Saddam dönemindeki Irak ve “özgürleştirilen “ Irak ararsındaki fark malum.
-Ve tabi Yahudilerin hakimiyeti. İsrail için Abd’nin 51.eyaleti benzetmesi yapılıyor.
- Abd’nin ortadoğu planlarındaki baş aktör İsrail. Sonsuz bir destekleri ve kusursuz bir birliktelikleri var.
Örneğin Birleşmiş milletlerde 1992’den itibaren her yıl ambargonun kaldırılması için oylama yapılıyor. Tüm ülkeler evet oyu kullanırken her yıl Abd dışında hayır oyu kullanan tek ülke İsrail.

Okumanızı önereceğim etkili ve güzel bir kitap.

[Soren Laskin · Rating 4 out of 5]

DO I agree with everything this guy says? No, but the history and main points are relevant and spot on. Proves the US has always been and will always be a manufactured war machine.

TLDR USA overthrows secular & progressive govs overseas, allows extremists to take over, and uses that an an excuse to invade the country and keep it impoverished OR install a bootlicking imperialist leader and then admit to all of it 15 years later

Some quotes woooo

"I almost feel sorry for the American troops scattered round the world on military bases situated on other people's land. They're 'can do' Americans, accustomed to getting their way, accustomed to thinking of themselves as the best, and they're frustrated as hell, unable to figure out 'why they hate us', why we can't win them over, why we can't at least wipe them out. Don't they want freedom and democracy?"

In April 1986, after the French Government refused the use of its airspace to SU warplaned headed for a bombing raid on Libya, the planes were forced to take another, longer route. When they reach libya they bombed so close to the French embassy that they building was damaged and all communication links knocked out.

Interesting that the human shields rhetoric is not new to Palestine, but was used as justification to murder civilians in Afghanistan too. The "enemy shoots from civilian areas" rhetoric as well.

"During its many bombings, from Vietnam to Iraq, Washington has repeatedly told the world that the resulting civilian deaths were accidental and very much "regretted:. But if you go out and drop powertful bombs over a populated area, and then learn that there have been a number of 'unintended' casualties, and then the next day go out and drop more bombs and learn again that there were 'unintended' casualties, and then the next day you go out and bomb again... at what point do you lose the right way to say that the deaths were 'unintended'? (85)

We also used our own soliders as guinea pigs for chemical and nuerological warfare, most without consent!

[Abdullah Al Rakib · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book from suggestions of Shahid Bolsen. I took 24 days to have fully complete this book. For the beginners, this book is eyeopeners. Well Written, analysed from solid and firm point of view.



The author addressed important intervention of the USA in the name of freedom and democracy. With insight, he, William Blum, critically explain the latent motive of the US intervention from Vietnam to Afghanistan.




The USA has no moral or political ideology, rather it just expands its influence for gaining and controlling more and more wealth, power.


It talks about freedom of women while it replaced secular government with hardcore islamic government in Afghanistan. The USA installed Taliban government in Afghanistan for its own benefit. They availed Taliban for its war against Soviet Russia. Before Taliban, the government in Afghanistan was secular, liberal and progressive but left-leaning, so the US couldn’t sit sluggishly to witness the triumph of the USSR, so they created, financed in favour of Taliban to store power in Afghanistan. Even, The USA financed to launch a lot of Islamic seminary where strict versions of Islam were taught. Thus, we can hold the USA for the spread of Militancy in South Asia. This is just an example how the USA played a dual role.



Apart from this, the USA withdrew more than 30 elected governments, and took part in assassination in case of more than 20 elected leaders. But now they chant about democracy, human rights. Even, they armed Saddam Hussein, later they accused of him holding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Though, they couldn’t prove single charges against him, they bombed, killed, maimed innocent civilians and mentionably Saddam's government was secular, they installed insurgents in Iraq who are much zealot that they deny many rights of women that Saddam provided.



Moreover, the USA is continuously patronizing ruthless dictatorship in North Africa to the West Asia.

[ARAH UTAMA · Rating 4 out of 5]

Selama empat puluh tahun, bagi Amerika Serikat (AS), hubungan antara militer AS dan Indonesia adalah yang paling dekat dibandingkan dengan negara dunia ketiga lainnya, Selain dalam militer, kedua negara ini juga kerap saling lempar pujian tentang proses demokrasi di negaranya masing - masing.

Persoalannya kemudian, sejauh mana demokrasi menjamin adanya sebuah sistem yang bebas kepentingan? Sejak 1945, menurut Blum, AS telah mencoba untuk menggulingkan lebih dari lima puluh pemerintahan, yang kebanyakan dipilih secara demokratis, dan ikut campur tangan dalam pemilihan - pemilihan umum di setidaknya tiga puluh negara.

Jadi, apa yang sebenarnya dimaksud oleh para pemimpin Amerika dengan "demokrasi"? Mekanisme - mekanisme politik, keuangan, dan hukum yang ramah terhadap korporasi global kah?

Buku ini yang mengungkap jawabannya.




For forty years, for the United States (US), the relationship between the US and Indonesian militaries is the closest compared to other third world countries. Apart from being in the military, these two countries also often exchange compliments about the democratic process in their respective countries.

The question then is, to what extent does democracy guarantee the existence of a system free of interests? Since 1945, according to Blum, the US has tried to overthrow more than fifty governments, most of which were democratically elected, and interfered in elections in at least thirty countries.

So what do America's leaders really mean by "democracy"? Are the political, financial and legal mechanisms friendly to global corporations?

This book reveals the answer.



#blurb
#Goodreads
#ArahUtama

[Yopi Makdori · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aroma kritik Blum terhadap kebijakan luar negeri AS khas Chomsky banget...

Buku ini bisa dibilang wajib sih buat dimiliki biar paham sisi lain kebijakan luar negeri Amerika yang berbanding terbalik dengan apa yang selama ini mereka kotbahkan.

Terdapat argumen menarik Bulm dalam buku ini yang saya yakin bakal menjungkir-balikan pemahaman pembaca. Blum berhipotesis bahwa Perang Dingin bukan merupakan perang antara Amerika Serikat (AS) melawan Uni Soviet, tapi perang Amerika melawan Dunia Ketiga. Rakyat dari seluruh Dunia Ketiga berjuang demi perubahan ekonomi dan politik melawan rezim-rezim penindas yang didukung oleh AS atau membangun pemerintahan-pemerintahan progresif mereka sendiri.

Aksi-aksi penentuan nasib sendiri ini kerap kali tidak seiring sejalan dengan kebutuhan para elit yang berkuasa di AS sehingga AS bergerak untuk menghancurkan pemerintahan-pemerintahan dan gerakan-gerakan tersebut, meskipun Uni Soviet (yang katanya musuh utama AS dalam Perang Dingin) hampir tidak memainkan peran sama sekali dalam skenario-skenario ini. Para pejabat Washington tentunya tidak dapat mengatakan bahwa mereka melakukan intervensi untuk mengadang perubahan ekonomi atau politik sehingga mereka menyebutnya dengan “melawan komunisme”, melawan sebuah konspirasi komunisme, melawan untuk kebebasan dan demokrasi.

Pola yang digunakan AS dalam memerangi rakyat-rakyat Dunia Ketiga adalah dengan menggunakan tentara Dunia Ketiga untuk menghabisi rakyatnya sendiri. Seperti halnya yang terjadi di El Salvador, Jose Salgado, seorang tentara pemerintah pada saat perang saudara 1980-1992 yang terjadi di negara itu.

[anna near · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars really.

there’s a lot of great info in america’s deadliest export: democracy, and i’ve already started using some of the talking points from it. blum clearly knows his stuff, and if you’ve read his articles before, you’ll recognize how deeply researched his work is. the book breaks down u.s. foreign policy in a way that’s both eye-opening and frustrating (in the way that all good critiques of power are).

that said, i had mixed feelings about the tone. it’s really casual—sometimes almost too casual for the subject matter. i get that it’s meant to be accessible and engaging, but personally, the way things were framed made me want to fact-check more often than i normally would with a book this well-researched. not because i thought the information was wrong, but because the delivery made me second-guess things.

and ofc this was published in 2013, so the statistics are a bit useless at this point. but it was fascinating seeing how many things in modern day america he predicted. definitely wish he was still around to speak on current state of affairs. he really was an incredible author and a big loss to journalism

[Terran #387 · Rating 4 out of 5]

You always hear things like "It's for oil!" when hearing dissidents speak about the Middle East. Or how "awful" the lives of Cubans are since they stupidly tried something called "Communism". In the past I've tried to look into these topics but due to the vastness of the subject (and my own inability to research effectively) I was usually left with more questions than answers. This book, which I came across when Googling "Books on US interference in Latin America" in the wake of the US bombing Venezuelan "Drug Traffickers", served as a very thorough introduction to US foreign policy. I recommended this book to one of my friends already and would to anyone who is skeptical of America's intentions in "Spreading Democracy".

[Madison · Rating 3 out of 5]

Has some pretty solid introductory information on US imperialism. However, I agreed with the author's passionate tone, but since I felt like this book would serve as a good introduction to US imperialism, the author's sarcasm and black-and-white tone might turn away readers who are new to such anti-imperialist ideas. But I understand him...when talking about the atrocities that the US has committed abroad, it is very difficult to not seem preachy or passionate.

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Casually read the book and enjoyed it, however William Blum could have done a better job of formatting his content. Some sections seemed to simply be an outlet for his disgust in U.S. Foreign Policy, although he balances this out with sections that are organized and thoughtful. Overall there is a ton of insight to be had reading this, and I would recommend it to anyone wanting to learn the ugly truth of U.S. foreign policy.