Written by David Starr   

Since the dissolving of the Soviet Union, the United States has tried to take advantage of not having a rival power of its magnitude by trying to further impose its ideological agenda worldwide.

U.S./Western objectives have been carried out to where there is a further imbalance of power globally. Russia and China are still rivals to the U.S., but the U.S. outspends them militarily. The U.S., in fact, outspends both of those countries along with Saudi Arabia, France, Britain, India and Germany put together - $610 billion compared to $601 billion. U.S. spending has thus gone way beyond self-defense, prioritizing a monetary empire.

For the last 24 years, the U.S. has been trying to pick up where it left off in the 1890s when it exercised Manifest Destiny by creating a new Gilded Age. It spread outward to take the Spanish colonies of Cuba, the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico; along with Hawai'i. There was no Soviet Union (not until 1917). In the ensuing decades, U.S. power has expanded worldwide, treating many nations like market satellites, particularly in the "Third World."

In Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. multi-national corporations have established private monopolies, using, and abusing, land, labor and wealth to control the means of production and distribution. Corporations from other countries have more or less done the same thing, but the U.S. has been more thorough.

There was a balance of power during the Cold War. The USSR reached military parity with the USA. For about 40 years, both superpowers were heated rivals. But to avoid MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), arms treaties were ratified. In the 1970s, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) led to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, where a number of older intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers were dismantled. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed in 1991 where there was the eventual removal of about 80% of all strategic nuclear weapons existing at the time.

By 1991, the USSR dissolved, along with the Warsaw Pact. Rather than having NATO dissolve as well, the latter went into imperial mode. Eastern Europe became a part of NATO. The latter bombed Libya, paving the way for religious fundamentalism to spread in North Africa. Washington supported the coup in Ukraine, which was led by right-wing forces. There is the threat of Ukraine becoming another NATO member eventually, which would put it at Russia's doorstep. This would further the imbalance of power. And Russia is not going to stand by and let this happen.

The imbalance of power also includes the U.S., under the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513 passed in the U.S. Congress, the Council of Europe and Germany leading the way for the dissolving of Yugoslavia, supporting right-wing forces in Croatia and Bosnia, setting off the dissolution; the neocon war drums beating against Iran, although the agreement its leaders signed forbids them to have nuclear weapons; and there is the agreement of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), led by the U.S., where corporations have almost unlimited power and would thus compliment the imbalance of power.

And Washington wants regime change in Syria, similar to what occurred in Iraq. But what is happening in Syria is just as, if not more, complex than in Iraq. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has been accused by the West of being a bloody dictator. But accusations from the U.S. in particular have been more for spreading the empire's imperial interests rather than prioritizing democracy. Tyrant or not, what al-Assad represents is an obstacle to U.S. hegemony in the Middle East region. As with Iraq, oil is a primary factor for regime change in Syria.

There is also ISIS to contend with, as well as other fundamentalist groups. The Obama administration's insistence on regime change and the need to fight ISIS has put the U.S. in a contradictory stance. Who to support? Who to oppose? Republican Senator John McCain made the maddening statement that the U.S. should give arms to ISIS to oppose al-Assad. Another maddening statement was made by Marco Rubio, Republican presidential contender, that the U.S. should fight Russia, the latter of which is conducting airstrikes against ISIS. Ignoring the obvious threat of another world war, Rubio has the mindset of a neoconservative, i.e., an armchair warrior. Although not as strong as the Soviet Union, Russia still has the military strength to make a decision by the U.S. to start a war a very bad one.

So, who to support? al-Assad or ISIS? al-Assad does have a secular government while ISIS is, well, ISIS. And how was ISIS created? U.S. military operations in Iraq included disbanding the Iraqi military and purging Baathists. This created a power vacuum that the Shiites filled. The Sunnis were thus thrown out of power, which resulted in ISIS. Unintentionally, it is the U.S. military's handi-work.

No one country should impose its model on the rest of the world. There has to be an equality of nations. That's why it is important to have Russia, China and other countries help provide a balance of power globally with the U.S. and its allies. It's not to ignore the human rights records of various countries, but the U.S. record would also be included.

Having equality prioritized globally will nullify the imbalance of power globally.

David Starr writes on various issues, both national and international