How 3 million Asian deaths expose the hypocrisy of the US’s war justifications
Their slogan, “America First,” is misleading. It doesn’t mean what they claim. In reality, it reflects their obsession with self-interest. They act solely based on what benefits them, without regard for others or international norms. The United States has a long history of pushing countries into wars, meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, and even creating conflicts to serve its own agenda.
Whenever there’s a dispute between countries, the US rarely acts as a neutral peacemaker. Instead, it supports whichever side aligns with its strategic or economic interests—regardless of the consequences. Civilian casualties, destruction, and military deaths don’t seem to matter; what matters most to them is control and influence.
VIETNAM WAR
After World War II, the US aimed to stop the spread of communism under its “containment policy.”
Vietnam was divided into North Vietnam (communist) and South Vietnam (anti-communist) after the Geneva Accords (1954).
The US began by sending military advisors and aid to support the South Vietnamese government.
It feared that if Vietnam fell to communism, other Southeast Asian countries would follow—this was the Domino Theory.
Deaths:
Vietnamese military & civilians:
An estimated 2–3 million deaths (including both North and South Vietnam).
Cambodian & Laotian civilians:
Around 500,000+, due to US bombings and spillover conflict.
US military personnel:
58,220 Americans killed.
Allied troops (e.g., South Korea, Australia, Thailand):
Several thousand combined.
What Did US Presidents Say to Justify the War?
John F. Kennedy (1961–1963)
Saw Vietnam as a test case for containing communism.
Justified involvement by saying:
“We are determined to help Vietnam preserve its independence and protect its people against Communist aggression.”
Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969)
Framed it as defending freedom and democracy:
“If we quit Vietnam tomorrow, we’ll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week we’ll have to be fighting in San Francisco.”
“We are there because we have a promise to keep.”
Richard Nixon (1969–1974)
Introduced Vietnamization: gradually pulling out US troops while training South Vietnamese.
Justified the war as part of America’s global credibility:
“If we lose this war to communism in Asia, the fall of Asia will inevitably threaten our own freedom.”
War in Afghanistan
After the 9/11 attacks, the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, claiming it was to destroy al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban who harboured them.
Presidents from George W. Bush to Joe Biden defended the war as a fight against terrorism.
Outcome: After 20 years, the US withdrew in 2021, and the Taliban returned to power. Many consider it a strategic failure.
India’s Nuclear Program and US Opposition
Under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, the United States responded to India’s nuclear test with shock and strong disapproval. While there was no military action, the US suspended nuclear cooperation with India and actively pushed for stricter nuclear export controls worldwide to prevent further proliferation.
The Indian test shattered the assumption that peaceful nuclear programs would stay peaceful. — US officials after 1974
President Bill Clinton condemned the tests: “India’s tests not only threaten peace in South Asia, they also challenge the firm international consensus to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.”
Clinton imposed economic sanctions on India under US law (Glenn Amendment).
Why is it that almost every African country remains poor despite being rich in natural resources like gold and diamonds? Why do wars often erupt in oil-rich nations? The answer often points toward foreign intervention—especially by powers like the United States. They have initiated and supported wars across the globe, resulting in the deaths of millions.
This is not all. There are other aspects the world should consider. Several terrorist organisations operate globally, but the question is: Who decides which group is a terrorist organisation? The answer always seems to be the UK, the US, and the UN. They are the ones who designate groups as terrorist organisations—but only when it serves their agenda.
For example, the Afghan Taliban was once labelled a terrorist organisation by the US and UK. However, after the US handed over Afghanistan to them, they were removed from the terrorist list and are now referred to as “Taliban officials.”
Another recent example is HTS in Syria and its leader, Jolani. The US and UK listed HTS as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO), and Jolani had a million-dollar bounty on his head as one of the world’s most wanted terrorists. But now, the US has used him against Iran and Russia, treating him as an ally. In a recent interview, Trump even praised Jolani as a “very strong man with a very strong past.” What was that past? Innocent lives lost to terrorism. Soon, like the Taliban, HTS will likely be removed from the FTO list—simply because they now serve Western interests.
If this isn’t enough to open the world’s eyes, then what is?
Let’s discuss the narratives around nuclear weapons and chemical weapons.
Why Did the US Invade Iraq?
The US claimed Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and posed an imminent threat—yet no such weapons were ever found, exposing the war’s deceitful pretext.
Real Motives:
Iraq held the world’s second-largest oil reserves, and controlling them allowed the US to dominate global energy markets, proving that oil and economic hegemony—not security—were the true drivers of invasion.
Why Did the US Want to Invade Syria?
The US did not outright invade Syria but supported regime change efforts (2011–present) through:
Proxy Wars: Funding and arming rebels (including extremist groups) against Bashar al-Assad.
Airstrikes & Special Ops: Under the pretext of fighting ISIS (but often targeting Syrian forces).
Reasons Behind US Hostility Toward Syria:
Pipeline Politics: Assad rejected a Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline (backed by the US) that would undermine Russian energy dominance in Europe.
Iranian Influence: Syria is Iran’s closest Arab ally; weakening Assad meant weakening Tehran.
Regime Change Agenda: Like Iraq, Syria was seen as a “rogue state” resisting US hegemony.
Israel’s Demand: Syria supports Hezbollah (Israel’s enemy), and removing Assad would isolate Iran.
The US has invaded nations directly and indirectly, deceiving the world with claims that these countries were developing or possessing weapons of mass destruction—nuclear and chemical weapons. Yet, the real motives lay elsewhere.
This raises a critical question: Why did they never dare to attack states that already possess nuclear weapons? Nations like North Korea, Pakistan (a well-documented sponsor of terrorism), and Russia have faced sanctions and threats but never outright invasion. The answer is simple: Nuclear deterrence works.
When a country can retaliate with devastating force, warmongers think twice. Hypocrisy guides their aggression—they target only those unable to fight back.
According to Western media, North Korea is portrayed as an open-air prison—a nation where oppression reigns, human rights violations soar, and citizens are stripped of basic freedoms. By the United States’ own proclaimed logic, this should justify military intervention to “liberate” the people and impose democracy.
Yet, no invasion comes. No airstrikes, no regime change operations. Why?
The unspoken truth is clear: geopolitical calculus overrides moral posturing. North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and a standing army capable of devastating retaliation, making the cost of intervention too high. Meanwhile, nations without such defences—Iraq, Libya, Syria—face relentless aggression under the same humanitarian pretexts.
This hypocrisy exposes the real rule of international power: might makes right, not principles.
The US has always prioritised its own geopolitical interests over genuine alliances. Today, it calls India a “strategic partner” and a “brother,” but history reveals a different story. During the 1971 India-Pakistan War, when India truly needed support, the US openly backed Pakistan—despite the atrocities committed by the Pakistani military in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).
Before the war, US President Richard Nixon warned India, “If India pokes its nose in Pakistan, the US will not keep its trap shut. India will be taught a lesson.”
In response, then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi firmly asserted, “India regards America as a friend, not a boss. We are capable of writing our own destiny and know how to deal with each situation as it arises.”
Declassified documents reveal even more shocking details:
The Nixon administration secretly violated its own arms embargo on Pakistan, facilitating military support through third countries like Jordan. (Reported by The Hindu)
The US military had direct orders to target Indian forces if necessary. (Reported by Times of India)
This hypocrisy underscores a harsh truth: The US supports nations only when they serve its agenda. Its so-called “friendship” is transactional—today’s ally can easily become tomorrow’s adversary if interests diverge. India’s resilience in 1971 proved that nations must rely on their own strength rather than expect unwavering loyalty from superpowers.
Their agenda is clear: submit or be destroyed. Obey their demands, and you’re a “model nation”—like their compliant allies in the Arab world. Defy them, and suddenly you’re a “threat to global security,” marked for elimination. One by one, they dismantle nations that refuse to kneel—through sanctions, coups, or outright war.
The recent BRICS summit exposed this hypocrisy. When member states dared to discuss ditching the US dollar for trade, the response was predictable: threats and sanctions. No defiance is tolerated. This is the playbook—economic strangulation for those who challenge their dominance, masked under the pretence of “rules-based order.”
Their real skill? Disguising coercion as benevolence while enforcing a world order where resistance is crushed.
Syed Zameer Raza Safvi is a freelance writer
Syed Zameer Raza Safvi
ra*********@***il.com