Invaded Sovereignties: Why the United States Went to War—and What Followed
By Jerry Adesewo
Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has intervened militarily in a significant number of sovereign nations. These interventions have been justified under varying excuses such as containment, counterterrorism, humanitarianism, regime change, or the defence of democracy. Yet, when examined closely, a recurring question emerges: did these wars achieve their stated objectives, and at what cost to sovereignty, stability, and international order?
The Cold War Template: Containment and Proxy Wars
During the Cold War, U.S. invasions and interventions were largely driven by the doctrine of containment—the belief that communism had to be stopped wherever it appeared.
In Korea (1950–1953), the U.S. intervened under a UN mandate to repel North Korean forces backed by China and the Soviet Union. The war ended in a stalemate, leaving Korea divided to this day, with one of the world’s most militarised borders.
In Vietnam (1955–1975), the U.S. escalated military involvement to prevent a communist takeover. The outcome was decisive but not in Washington’s favour: Vietnam unified under communist rule after immense human cost, and the war permanently altered American public trust in government.
In Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989), the U.S. justified invasion on grounds of protecting American citizens and restoring democracy. While militarily swift and successful, both actions raised concerns about unilateralism and the selective application of international law.
The Middle East: Oil, Security, and Regime Change
The Middle East has been the most consequential theatre of U.S. military intervention.
The 1991 Gulf War against Iraq followed Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and was framed as restoring sovereignty. Militarily, the objective was achieved. Politically, however, unresolved tensions led to prolonged sanctions and set the stage for future conflict.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq marked a turning point. Justified by claims of weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism—claims later proven false—the war toppled Saddam Hussein but dismantled state institutions. The outcome was catastrophic instability, sectarian violence, the rise of ISIS, and a fractured Iraqi state still struggling to regain cohesion.
In Afghanistan (2001–2021), the U.S. responded to the 9/11 attacks by dismantling Al-Qaeda and overthrowing the Taliban. While the initial military objectives were achieved quickly, the longer-term goal of nation-building failed. After 20 years, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives lost, the Taliban returned to power almost immediately after U.S. withdrawal.
In Libya (2011), U.S.-backed NATO intervention was presented as a humanitarian mission to prevent mass atrocities. The immediate outcome was the fall of Muammar Gaddafi. The long-term result was state collapse, civil war, and a haven for militias and traffickers—an outcome that destabilised the Sahel and North Africa.
Latin America: Security, Ideology, and Influence
In Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973), U.S. involvement—though sometimes covert—played a decisive role in overthrowing elected governments deemed unfriendly to U.S. interests. These actions led to decades of repression and instability, undermining democratic development in the region.
In Nicaragua (1980s), U.S. support for the Contras against the Sandinista government prolonged the conflict and civilian suffering, despite international condemnation.
Post-9/11 Interventions and the War on Terror
Beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. has conducted military operations, drone strikes, and special forces missions in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and parts of West Africa, often without explicit declarations of war.
These interventions are typically justified as counterterrorism measures. While some high-profile militant leaders have been eliminated, the broader outcome has often been the fragmentation of states, civilian casualties, radicalisation, and the erosion of sovereignty.
Venezuela: Pressure, Intervention, and the Erosion of Sovereignty
More recently, Venezuela has emerged as a modern case study in how military pressure and external intervention short of full-scale invasion can still deeply undermine sovereignty. Under the justification of restoring democracy, protecting regional stability, and responding to alleged human rights abuses, the United States pursued a strategy that combined crippling economic sanctions, covert operations, support for opposition figures, and reported paramilitary incursions. These actions were framed as necessary responses to governance failure under Nicolás Maduro. The consequences, however, have been severe: economic collapse, mass migration across Latin America, institutional paralysis, and heightened militarisation of Venezuelan society. Rather than producing political transition or stability, the sustained interventionist pressure has entrenched authoritarian tendencies, worsened humanitarian conditions, and left the country’s sovereignty weakened but unresolved—illustrating how intervention without a viable political pathway often deepens the crisis it claims to solve.
Patterns, Outcomes, and Lessons
Across decades of intervention, a clear pattern asserts itself with stubborn consistency. Military victory, even when swift and overwhelming, rarely delivers the political stability it promises. Governments may fall, regimes may collapse, but the intricate work of rebuilding institutions, legitimacy, and social trust is often neglected or underestimated. In many cases, the removal of a ruling authority without a viable political alternative creates power vacuums that are quickly filled by militias, extremist groups, or competing factions, plunging societies into prolonged uncertainty.
The justifications for these interventions may change with time, but their consequences remain remarkably familiar. What begins as a mission to halt communism, combat terrorism, or prevent humanitarian catastrophe frequently ends in drawn-out instability, weakened states, and cycles of violence that outlive the original rationale for war. The language of intervention evolves, yet the outcomes stubbornly resist improvement.
Equally troubling is the selective application of sovereignty. The principle of non-interference is treated less as a universal norm and more as a flexible tool, respected when convenient and discarded when strategic interests dictate otherwise. This inconsistency erodes the credibility of international law and fuels perceptions of double standards in global governance.
Perhaps most enduring is the phenomenon of blowback. Many of today’s global security challenges—from transnational terrorist networks and illicit arms flows to mass displacement and regional instability—are directly traceable to earlier interventions. The effects of war do not end when troops withdraw; they reverberate across borders and generations, reshaping the global security landscape in ways often unforeseen by those who first ordered the intervention.
Conclusion
The historical record shows that while the United States possesses unmatched military power, force alone has not produced lasting peace or stable democracies in invaded sovereign nations. In many cases, the destruction of institutions, social trust, and legitimacy has outlived the original justifications for war.
As global power becomes more diffused and multipolar, the lessons of these interventions are increasingly relevant. Sovereignty, once violated, is difficult to restore. Stability imposed by force is rarely stable. And wars launched in the name of security often return as insecurity—globally shared and painfully persistent.
The question for the future is no longer whether the U.S. can invade sovereign nations—but whether the world can afford the consequences when it does.