The Namibian newspaper, in its 5 August 2026 edition, stated that “the United States (US) has positioned itself as Namibia’s preferred long-term partner in developing the country’s mining and energy sectors, pledging investment that supports local jobs, skills development and value addition rather than simply extracting raw materials.”

But honestly, can they be trusted at all? This is a deeply debated question, particularly for African leaders, whose opinions are heavily influenced by the outcomes and intentions of past US military actions, interventions and invasions. Critics and sceptics argue that a history of America’s misleading justifications and destabilising outcomes makes unconditional trust totally unwarranted.

Major conflicts, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, were launched on claims about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that later proved false.

U.S. military interventions, such as coups d’état, assassinations of African leaders, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Afghanistan, regime-change operations in Latin America, Libya and the Middle East, and the genocide in Gaza, often resulted in massive civilian casualties, long-term regional instability and the rise of extremist groups.

US military objectives 

Critics argue that US foreign policy is driven primarily by geopolitical dominance, economic interests, or access to resources rather than genuine humanitarian or democratic motives. Unilateral US military actions, conducted without international consensus, such as approval from the United Nations Security Council, have often violated international law and national sovereignty. US military interventions and occupations have frequently been intertwined with the protection of national commerce, the securing of vital resources, and the expansion of geopolitical leverage.

Between 1898 and 1994, the US intervened successfully to change Latin American governments at least 41 times, roughly once every 28 months. Many incidents involved US military, intelligence, or local citizens working for US agencies. In some cases, the US led the action but relied on government encouragement to succeed.

The Banana Wars: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the US military frequently intervened in Central America and the Caribbean, including Nicaragua, Honduras, and Haiti, to protect American corporate investments in agriculture and infrastructure, such as those of the United Fruit Company.

The Panama Canal: The US support for Panama’s separation from Colombia in 1903 and the subsequent invasion in 1989 (Operation Justice Cause) were fundamentally tied to maintaining unhindered strategic and economic control over the Panama Canal shipping lanes.

The Middle East conflicts, including the 2003 Iraq War, fuelled debates on regional security versus global petroleum supply and market stability. The US and allies invaded Iraq on 20 March 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein and eliminate WMDs, which were not found.

The US aimed at long-term stability and a friendly regime in the oil-rich Persian Gulf, viewing Saddam as a threat to global energy supplies.

Also, the United States launched a military intervention on 3 January 2026, code named Operation Absolute Resolve, which captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. The official justification was to fight drug trafficking, while analysts and critics point to control over vast oil reserves and regional dominance as the core drivers.

The United States’ military interventions and occupations have frequently been intertwined with the protection of national commerce, the securing of vital resources, and the expansion of geopolitical leverage. Scholars and historians debate the precise weight of economic motivations versus security and political ideology in the Patterns of American Interventions, but commercial access and resource security remain recurring themes in United States foreign interventions.

Hypothesis based interventions 

This hypothesis has two variants: corruption and capitalism. The corruption hypothesis argues that US officials ordered interventions to protect U.S. corporations. Evidence includes the 1954 deposition of Guatemala’s government, in which decision-makers, except Eisenhower, had ties to the United Fruit Company, which was harmed by local policies.

However, US intervention was likely driven by broader concerns beyond corporate interests.

The capitalism hypothesis suggests the US intervened not to save individual companies but to protect the private enterprise system, benefiting all US companies in the region. This argument is plausible, supported by US officials’ frequent praise of free enterprise.

Capitalism was likely not at risk in most US interventions, so ideology doesn’t explain the reasons for intervention. Although officials prefer democratic regimes, they more often intervene to overthrow elected governments than to restore democracy, limiting this explanation’s power.

Namibia’s narrow focus on partnering with the US to benefit from natural resources is risky. US interventions failed to serve US interests, fuelling global suspicion and resentment and casting doubt on America’s commitment to peace, democracy, multilateralism, and the rule of law.

*Maj. Gen. (RTD) J. B Tjivikua is a Criminal Intelligence Analyst.