Operation Gideon was a hilariously ill-planned failure, and if you're referring to the successful (for a time) 2019 coup in Bolivia, that was mostly the fault of the OAS and the conservatives in the country. The Trump administration, from what I can gather, performed no differently with Bolivia than any other previous US leadership would. It voiced support for the findings of the OAS and denounced Morales as a dictator.
His incompetence and boredom in this area is at least offset by his willingness to pick fights with anyone and the ability of his handlers to talk him into stuff he doesn't really care about
I would disagree with that, but it's hard to prove either way conclusively. Even so, that irrationality and hostility further isolates America on the world stage, and can only hasten the decline of empire.
Democrats, for as shitty as they are on imperialism, haven't been responsible for a full-scale invasion since Vietnam. Over the same time period Republicans have invaded Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan.
All of those invasions were carried out with varying degrees of bipartisan support, and to say that the Democrats would have acted significantly differently were they in control of the presidency is naïve. Additionally, more US troops were sent to Libya in 2011 than were sent to Grenada in 1983, so if Grenada qualifies as a "full-scale" invasion then Libya should as well.
the successful (for a time) 2019 coup in Bolivia, that was mostly the fault of the OAS and the conservatives in the country
Don't count your chickens before they hatch, the OAS is heavily influenced by the U.S., and even the most cursory reading of Latin American history should lead you to the default assumption that the U.S. is behind any right-wing coup.
that irrationality and hostility further isolates America on the world stage, and can only hasten the decline of empire.
This isn't a bad point, but I'm skeptical of it as the U.S. has the ability and willingness to act unilaterally.
to say that the Democrats would have acted significantly differently were they in control of the presidency is naïve
I don't think Democrats would have fabricated the 2003 invasion of Iraq out of thin air. Clinton had all the opportunities in the world to do that in the 1990s and didn't, and Obama never did anything of that magnitude either. And "the Democrats would have done the same thing" is speculative while "the Democrats didn't do anything similar" is historical record.
The OAS is certainly heavily influenced by the US, but that influence is bipartisan, and American intervention in Latin America is a bipartisan endeavor as well. For example, the overthrow of Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz, while executed under Eisenhower in 1954 with Operation PBSuccess, was first planned under Truman with Operation PBFortune two years earlier. I find it very unlikely based on history that the actions of the OAS would have been any different with a Democratic president.
I mean, the Democrats did do similar things with Libya, and Obama increased the amount of troops in Afghanistan by 50% less than a month into his presidency. Looking at the vote for the invasion of Iraq, over half of Democratic senators voted for it, including Schumer, Biden, Kerry, Clinton, and Feinstein. The democratic leadership was totally cool with it (save Pelosi, so points for her I guess). The idea isn't "the Democrats would have done the same thing", but rather "the Democrats have done similar things and voted to let Republicans do it when they themselves were not in power." Liberals have no problem with going gung-ho into countries that don't kneel to America, they just try to give the appearance that they do.
Democrats did do similar things with Libya, and Obama increased the amount of troops in Afghanistan by 50% less than a month into his presidency.
Libya arguably would have been better off without U.S. intervention, but that was preceded by widespread uprisings that were either a civil war or close to it. It's not really comparable to the OAS ginning up false issues with a recent election and eventually deposing the just-elected president, all directly contrary to the will of the people. Similarly, the surge in Afghanistan was an attempt to end a war we were already fighting, as just flat-out leaving could easily leave the country in a state like Libya's in today. That's also not all that comparable to engineering a coup against a popular government at peace. These events aren't carbon copies of one another.
Looking at the vote for the invasion of Iraq, over half of Democratic senators voted for it
Voting for an invasion is not the same as inventing the reason for that invasion out of thin air. Going along with it is bad, but not nearly as bad as forging a ton of intelligence, crafting a propaganda campaign to manufacture consent, and then browbeating opponents with "you hate America" just two years after 9/11.
Operation Gideon was a hilariously ill-planned failure, and if you're referring to the successful (for a time) 2019 coup in Bolivia, that was mostly the fault of the OAS and the conservatives in the country. The Trump administration, from what I can gather, performed no differently with Bolivia than any other previous US leadership would. It voiced support for the findings of the OAS and denounced Morales as a dictator.
I would disagree with that, but it's hard to prove either way conclusively. Even so, that irrationality and hostility further isolates America on the world stage, and can only hasten the decline of empire.
All of those invasions were carried out with varying degrees of bipartisan support, and to say that the Democrats would have acted significantly differently were they in control of the presidency is naïve. Additionally, more US troops were sent to Libya in 2011 than were sent to Grenada in 1983, so if Grenada qualifies as a "full-scale" invasion then Libya should as well.
this, im not sure how muich america even did in bolivia, probably did at least something, but considering it failed miserably, probably not that much
Don't count your chickens before they hatch, the OAS is heavily influenced by the U.S., and even the most cursory reading of Latin American history should lead you to the default assumption that the U.S. is behind any right-wing coup.
This isn't a bad point, but I'm skeptical of it as the U.S. has the ability and willingness to act unilaterally.
I don't think Democrats would have fabricated the 2003 invasion of Iraq out of thin air. Clinton had all the opportunities in the world to do that in the 1990s and didn't, and Obama never did anything of that magnitude either. And "the Democrats would have done the same thing" is speculative while "the Democrats didn't do anything similar" is historical record.
The OAS is certainly heavily influenced by the US, but that influence is bipartisan, and American intervention in Latin America is a bipartisan endeavor as well. For example, the overthrow of Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz, while executed under Eisenhower in 1954 with Operation PBSuccess, was first planned under Truman with Operation PBFortune two years earlier. I find it very unlikely based on history that the actions of the OAS would have been any different with a Democratic president.
I mean, the Democrats did do similar things with Libya, and Obama increased the amount of troops in Afghanistan by 50% less than a month into his presidency. Looking at the vote for the invasion of Iraq, over half of Democratic senators voted for it, including Schumer, Biden, Kerry, Clinton, and Feinstein. The democratic leadership was totally cool with it (save Pelosi, so points for her I guess). The idea isn't "the Democrats would have done the same thing", but rather "the Democrats have done similar things and voted to let Republicans do it when they themselves were not in power." Liberals have no problem with going gung-ho into countries that don't kneel to America, they just try to give the appearance that they do.
Libya arguably would have been better off without U.S. intervention, but that was preceded by widespread uprisings that were either a civil war or close to it. It's not really comparable to the OAS ginning up false issues with a recent election and eventually deposing the just-elected president, all directly contrary to the will of the people. Similarly, the surge in Afghanistan was an attempt to end a war we were already fighting, as just flat-out leaving could easily leave the country in a state like Libya's in today. That's also not all that comparable to engineering a coup against a popular government at peace. These events aren't carbon copies of one another.
Voting for an invasion is not the same as inventing the reason for that invasion out of thin air. Going along with it is bad, but not nearly as bad as forging a ton of intelligence, crafting a propaganda campaign to manufacture consent, and then browbeating opponents with "you hate America" just two years after 9/11.