[wongarsu]

ISIS is a direct consequence of US interventions.

The Post-WWII history of the middle east mostly follows the pattern “US declares $X evil. In its fight against $X, US supports $lesserEvil with money and weapons. $Y years later $lesserEvil has used funding and weapons to grow and become $greaterEvil. US declares $W as $lesserEvil and funds them. Repeat.“

Short term that might seem smart, but do it long enough and you have a region full of well armed splitter groups, are least half of which hate you.

The UdSSR/Russia isn't blameless either, but the most notable positive long term effect of US actions in the middle east seem to be more jobs in the military-industrial-complex.

[fauigerzigerk]

The pattern you're describing is unfortunately a pretty accurate reflection of the post WWII history of the Middle East. However, consider how these mistakes happened.

First there were the Nazis. They invaded half of Europe while the US remained neutral until it was attacked by Japan in 1941. After the US and its allies won the war, the overwhelming majority of Germans celebrated their liberation and went on to become a prosperous ally of the US. Great success.

Then there was the cold war, which was essentially an attempt to prevent the Soviets from achieving their avowed goal of world domination. Again, the US and its allies won that conflict and the overwhelming majority of Eastern Europeans are greatful for it. (Let's not get into a debate about the merits of Socialism here. Soviet style totalitarianism and Stalinism isn't what most on the left want nowadays. At least my Marxist friends don't)

So there were two very important historical episodes during which a refusal of the US to do anything more than defend the homeland would have been catastrophic. Unfortunately, this has lead to a doctrine of uncritical and imprudent interventionism and to a refusal to learn from the many mistakes that were made during the cold war, most importantly in the Middle East (but also in Latin America).

My point is, even though your criticism of failed interventionist policies is correct, it means little without also discussing the crucially important successes of global US military power.

[dTal]

Not just the Middle East. You could say the USSR itself was in fact partially an example of this pattern. The US donated enormous quantities of resources to the Soviet Union during WW2 to beat the Nazis, including significant railway infrastructure; the Cold War began virtually the moment both US and Soviet troops were in Berlin. While it is true that most Soviet weaponry was home-grown, arguably they would not have won without US aid.

In all the major conflicts after that - Vietnam, Korea, Middle East - the US was supporting opponents of the Soviet Union.