It's hard to know what exact effect our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has had on the world. I'm sure there are people at military academies and universities getting PhDs on it.
Whatever the answer is, I don't think we should let the analysis fall prey to populism. As much as I'd agree that Iraq seems to have been a disaster, and that we haven't managed to accomplish much in Afghanistan, consider the wider implications. The USA has managed to navigate itself to the point where it put significant pressure on Iran through sanctions, has agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, and is beginning to re-enter the global economy amidst a lessening of tensions. Presumably at least partially as a result, the price of oil is down to $40, which is lower than it was in 1985. (Consider where Iran is on the world map relative to Iraq and Afghanistan.) For all we know in the general public, that was the strategic goal the entire time. (Yes, I know, that's probably giving the government too much credit. Then again, consider the skill of sabotage like the Stuxnet virus, and imagine the same skill applied to long-term global strategic thinking.)
Perhaps the empire would be much stronger if not for those blunders, or perhaps Iraq would still be a dictatorship and Iran a nuclear threat. As much as ISIS is annoying, it doesn't seem to be an actual strategic threat in the way that nuclear powers with long-range ballistic missiles are.
Just to be clear, I don't know what to believe. I'm playing devil's advocate and primarily arguing not to prematurely conclude that things are simpler than they seem. Consider, for example, the layers of subtlety involved in executing Nixon's Madman theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory - given the crazy things that actually have happened in our world and politics, I would not be especially surprised if the government knowingly went to war with Iraq on a pretext, specifically to put pressure on Iran and take geo-political control of the region (perhaps even to destabilize the region), with a "fall guy" planned out ahead of time in the way of "no one really believed there were WMDs". The story that, "We thought they had WMDs and were wrong" is a lot easier for the public and world to accept than, "We are strategically invading Iraq and Afghanistan to put pressure on Iran."
Granted, I agree with you that these situations are total clusterfucks. I'm just saying let's look beneath the surface.
With respect to Iran it's worth reflecting on the fact that the US engineered a coup in Iran to depose Mosaddegh in 1953[1]. At that time the UK and US did not like the winner of a largely democratic process that installed Mosaddegh as Prime Minister and that had forced the Shah to flee Iran. Operation AJAX got rid of Mosaddegh as Prime Minister and brought the Shah back. The US then supported him as he weakened the democratic process and angered the population leading to the Iranian Revlolution. One could argue that the 1953 coup sowed the seeds of the 1979 Iranian revolution[2] that created the Islamic Republic of Iran who then went on to start the nuclear program that you mention. The US also supported Saddam Hussain in Iraq's war against Iran in which 500,000 or more people died. Who knows where the region would be if it were not for the 1953 coup.
A bad idea to gain some negotiating power led to a lie that caused an unjust invasion, the direct murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the deaths of probably a million people in the area since.
Sure, let's look a bit deeper. We ignored the treason the first time around but it's not too late to hang a bunch of people.
They deserve as much of a pass as a kidnapper of children who says he plans to build a hospital with the ransom.
You know that it was precisely the sort of meddling you're talking about that got us into this mess with Iran in the first place, right? So at best, we broke even.
The US was at its most powerful at the end of WWII. Its GDP was more than rest of the world combined. Military and industrial capacity - unmatched. And the only power with nuclear weapons. At the end of the war they were barely scratched compared to the total devastation in Europe and Asia.
USA could have literally taken over the world with no one to oppose them.
So ... especially after the first oil shock - you could view US in a state of relative decline. With a short blip during the 90s when they were reaping the spoils of winning the cold war.
Whatever the answer is, I don't think we should let the analysis fall prey to populism. As much as I'd agree that Iraq seems to have been a disaster, and that we haven't managed to accomplish much in Afghanistan, consider the wider implications. The USA has managed to navigate itself to the point where it put significant pressure on Iran through sanctions, has agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, and is beginning to re-enter the global economy amidst a lessening of tensions. Presumably at least partially as a result, the price of oil is down to $40, which is lower than it was in 1985. (Consider where Iran is on the world map relative to Iraq and Afghanistan.) For all we know in the general public, that was the strategic goal the entire time. (Yes, I know, that's probably giving the government too much credit. Then again, consider the skill of sabotage like the Stuxnet virus, and imagine the same skill applied to long-term global strategic thinking.)
Perhaps the empire would be much stronger if not for those blunders, or perhaps Iraq would still be a dictatorship and Iran a nuclear threat. As much as ISIS is annoying, it doesn't seem to be an actual strategic threat in the way that nuclear powers with long-range ballistic missiles are.
Just to be clear, I don't know what to believe. I'm playing devil's advocate and primarily arguing not to prematurely conclude that things are simpler than they seem. Consider, for example, the layers of subtlety involved in executing Nixon's Madman theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory - given the crazy things that actually have happened in our world and politics, I would not be especially surprised if the government knowingly went to war with Iraq on a pretext, specifically to put pressure on Iran and take geo-political control of the region (perhaps even to destabilize the region), with a "fall guy" planned out ahead of time in the way of "no one really believed there were WMDs". The story that, "We thought they had WMDs and were wrong" is a lot easier for the public and world to accept than, "We are strategically invading Iraq and Afghanistan to put pressure on Iran."
Granted, I agree with you that these situations are total clusterfucks. I'm just saying let's look beneath the surface.