The Independent Voice of West Indies Cricket
…why every administration defended this country, right or wrong. Especially when it brings nothing to the table, in fact it takes.
Is it because it provides a ready made excuse to launch attack in the region whenever western economic interests are threatened or to reward the military industrial complex? Hmm…one wonders.
@CricSham
Something I wrote, a portion of a speech from a year ago, has some similarity to your thoughts.
It’s always been a bit wild to watch how every U.S. administration, no matter the party or the president, seems to fall into the same routine: reflexively shielding this state from consequences, backing it in international forums, and treating criticism like some kind of personal insult to Washington.
And let’s be honest about the usual sales pitch: “shared values,” “strategic ally,” "stability," and all the familiar buzzwords. But when you look at the balance sheet, it’s fair to ask what the U.S. actually gets that couldn’t be achieved another way, especially when the relationship often looks less like a partnership and more like a permanent tab the American public keeps paying.
So why does it continue, year after year?
One explanation is that it functions as a kind of all-purpose pretext. If you need a dependable foothold, a permanent “democracy under siege” storyline, or a convenient justification to project force in a region that sits on energy routes and trade chokepoints, it’s already there, ready-made and politically packaged. When Western commercial interests start looking shaky, suddenly there’s a fresh emergency, a new “security requirement," and another round of moral panic. The script writes itself.
And then there’s the quieter part nobody in official speeches wants to say out loud: it’s a reliable engine for spending. Security assistance, weapons transfers, replenishment contracts, "defence cooperation,” new systems, upgrades, training, and an endless loop where escalation conveniently produces demand. That demand doesn’t just vanish into the air; it lands in the laps of contractors, lobbyists, and the broader defence industry ecosystem. The cycle is self-feeding: more tension → more hardware → more profit → more political influence → more unconditional support.
Add to that domestic politics, lobby pressure, donor networks, fear of being branded "soft," and media framing, and you get a situation where supporting this country becomes the path of least resistance for any administration. It’s not even about right or wrong anymore. It’s about what’s safest for a politician to do and what’s easiest for an empire to justify.
So yeah, people can call it “strategic,” but to outsiders it often looks like something else: a protected client that helps keep the region combustible, keeps intervention options on the table, and keeps the money flowing to the right places.
Makes you wonder what the relationship is really built to serve.
Sarge