The United States has carried out "military operations" in the world in 214 years, so it has only stayed at home in 21 years. After the Second World War, its armed forces have attacked a lot of countries. There are not a few coups of state that have driven and supported them. Millions of people have killed, directly or indirectly, the major world powers.

Some thought that the end of this terrible story could come from the hand of Obama. However, those were not the only ones who had "hope" that Obama would be in power. The U.S. military industry and some neocon that have become “guardians” of geo-imperial interests believe that Obama’s image could be more effective than Bush’s image in moving forward with the Empire’s expansionist project. In the past, the foreign policy advisers and officials who worked in the Bush administration are already in the Obama administration.

The image damage caused by the military wars and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq had to revert to the strategies used in the Clinton era to repair, rather than direct military intervention, propaganda stigmatization campaigns to drive regime change in countries, to subsidize instability and, if necessary, to support and arm the armed opposition groups. The last phase of this methodology is usually the bombardment of countries. In fact, as was done in 1999 in Yugoslavia, without any UN mandate.

The game of this strategy is dangerous: “I often subsidize and attack the enemies of my enemies – and friends – whom I have already armed on other occasions can make alliances with other enemies of mine; to whom I have supported and armed, without ruling out that from morning to night my enemies may become.” For example, ask Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. Recently, John McCain, on a television show, explained that the secret services of the United States of America are not. They have sought a pretext for bombing Syria without the permission of their government and the UN, which have denied any kind of permission.

Obama has taken less than six years to bomb seven independent countries and to promote and protect three or four coups of state, including the United States. It is not a bad brand, but most “pacifist” and “anti-imperialist” political movements and parties have hardly criticized these facts. The actions that Russia has done and that it has not done are strongly criticised – with a scandalous double moral – but when the West applauds, hides or criticises equals or the like in a much warmer way.

It's not easy to criticize the West, which has great media and propaganda control: a German journalist has just published a book in which he explains that the U.S. intelligence services. On the other hand, criticizing second- or third-class powers that are enemies of the Empire is not difficult. For example, criticizing Russia in many cases can be beneficial to those who criticize, because if you criticize the enemy of the Empire, you may receive criticism from some “heavy” anti-imperialists you have at home, but if your gaze is in the world, you know that criticizing Russia is rewarded. In international politics it is like passing the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) exam of the Western Empire, which validates and “normalizes” you.