Leaving aside double negatives and that, surely the use of "began" in that context, Doug, did rather imply that any movements towards freedom in that part of the world had its roots in the wars and invasions? The implication being that the part played by our countries has been consistently liberating.

Whereas a strong case can be made for arguing that it was largely as a result of previous activities of our countries in that part of the world that such repressive regimes were in power. As is currently the case in other countries where the repressive nature of the regiumes in power are nbkt seen as any kind of problem, since they are regarded as friendlly. As had been the case with Saddam for decades and even with the Taliban for a significant time.

The best argument for the wars was that they could be seen as a way in which our countries could make good some part of the damage they had inflicted. (Except that if we'd actually been trying to do that, I do not think we would have gone about it in precisely that way.)