There is a dichotomy between the mentalities of children versus adults when it comes to understanding “the Golden Rule” of treating others as one would like to be treated. A tenant of almost every major religion, the rule is so deeply ingrained that it can become a lens for all human relations. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the war on terror, where America has come into the forefront of world conflicts.  What is first taken as a maxim, “the Golden Rule,” or ethic of reciprocity, teaches children how to live harmoniously with one another. However, this lighthearted connotation is transformed in adults, who use it to justify their egocentrism and the use of militant force. In the arena of politics, this has had drastic effects; child’s play has turned into a war for democracy.   

America has been involved in twenty conflicts abroad in the past five years, according to the U.S. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Many of these operations have been inspired by Western exceptionalism, the idea that democracy is the best and should dominate the Earth.  Seeking more allies, the United States has either tried to establish democracy in failed states or elect officials we support in a power play. 

The epitome of such missions was in 1953, when America staged a coup to install the Shah as the supreme leader of Iran.  Historically this strategy has failed time and time again, leaving other nations worse off than before. Now, this approach is leading to even more destruction—drone strikes in Northwest Pakistan, War in Iraq and hunting of Somali extremists and other anti-terrorist operations.

What is clear is that forcing American values upon regions where Islam is prevalent grows resentment and hostility, not assimilation.  The Golden Rule of American politics must be exposed red-handed if the mayhem of civil unrest and civilian casualties is to be stopped.  

American strategy in the war for democracy involves treating civilian casuality as collateral damage. Some of the most devastating effects of U.S. military intervention can be found in Northwest Pakistan. Drone strikes have ravaged the nation, whose citizens live in perpetual fear of attack. “When we got hit, my father’s body was scattered in pieces and he died immediately, but I was unconscious for three to four days,” says Waleed Shiraz, a 22-year-old Pakistani who was pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science before the strike. “I am now disabled. I have been completely ruined.” Horrific stories like Shiraz’s are not uncommon. 

Zubair, a 13-year-old Pakistani boy, presented his story before Congress in 2013, to no avail: “I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer gray skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are gray.”

A 2011 study by Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law states that “the number of high-level targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—about 2%.” This figure is so startling; over 3,000 Pakistani people have been killed by drone strikes since 2004 

What is now clear in U.S.-Pakistan relations following a detestable war is that the Pakistani people are angry and afraid. Opposition to drone strikes has accompanied increasingly negative perceptions of the U.S. According to the 2012 International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution, “Roughly three in four [Pakistanis] now consider the U.S. an enemy, an increase from both 2010 and 2011.” Furthermore, the same anti-democratic superstructures which existed in the country before the strikes are still present, another sign that “The Golden Rule” is not applicable in foreign affairs.

Another Middle Eastern target, Iraq, has also faced the consequences of American democracy. The eight-year war with Iraq—one waged on false information about weapons of mass destruction—saw an astounding death toll of 500,000 Iraqis according to Congressional research. 

Additionally, the next generation of young Iraqis are now facing a new crisis.  Toxic heavy metals such as depleted uranium were released from our bombings, which are causing rates of child cancer and birth defects to reach historically unprecedented levels in Fallujah and other Iraq cities according to The Independent, a British-based newspaper.

American military operations are also prevalent in Somalia, where the Islamist militant group al-Shabaab is terrorizing the country. Somalia has suffered from a twenty-four year civil war due to the proliferation of armed rebel groups such as al-Shabaab.  Not until 2012 was the Somalian federal government created in an attempt to provide more stability for the ravaged country.  

American intervention could not be more poorly timed. SEAL Team Six raid of the fishing village of Baraawe in 2013 failed altogether. The al-Shabaab leader, Abdikadar Mohamed Abdikadar, was not apprehended, and SEAL had to retreat after a deadly gun battle ensued. 

Other, more recent strikes were inconclusive about whether or not the target was killed, according to Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby. Just last Friday, U.S drone strikes targeted Somalia Shabaab leaders believed to be responsible for the 2013 attack of Westgate mall in Kenya. The reason these strikes have increased in a starving, warring country like Somalia is because when one terrorist is killed, there is another waiting to take his place.  American efforts in Somalia are not inspired by justice. If anything, our involvement in the region is part of a larger anti-terrorist movement. America has identified Islamist extremism as the enemy to democracy. 

Following the adversarial paradigm, American politicians will do anything in their power to eradicate it while overlooking deeper, underlying problems which put the country at high risk. 

In 2011, for instance, the plight of the Somali people was exacerbated by the worst drought in six decades, which killed a quarter million—many of whom were children—and caused tens of thousands to flee to Kenya and Ethiopia in search of food. 

In this same year, the U.S spent $61 million in humanitarian aid to Somalia while over $16 billion funded counterterrorism efforts. From this perspective, it is clear that American interests lie more in establishing stable governments to ally with than, saving civilian lives. 

As American focus on military operations abroad increases, the Golden Rule of war— fight until other countries have democracy like we have—becomes more appallingly apparent. Such ignorance of others’ cultures, values and political systems is reminiscent of Cold War era politics, wherein the U.S. was hysterical about the eradication of communism. Today, such vitriolic ideology still exists, only the reds have been replaced by Islamist extremists. In this context, American involvement in the Middle East and North Africa is both misguided and dangerous. The devastating effects in countries we have invaded may mark the beginning of even more serious war, savagery and ignorant militarization.  

In the words of George Bernard Shaw, an Irish playwright and co-founder of the London School of Politics and Economics, “The golden rule is that there are no Golden Rules.” This is especially true when it comes to negotiating agreements between different countries with different ideas about “good” treatment.