From what you quoted this looks like a reasonably executed operation. I don't see any blatant failures here. You might disagree with the goals and outcomes, but I expect the result was close to what US government expected (pro-US power, weakened region). US supports US interests, that's basically the only criteria and always was. Don't conflate actual goals with the justifications (human rights, freedom of speech, etc) government uses to convince own population.
You might disagree with the goals and outcomes, but
...they don't? Yes, naturally, or they wouldn't be doing that stuff. And you might disagree with my assessment, but I don't, that's why I made it.
US supports US interests
That's a abstraction so simplified it says nothing at all.
pro-US power, weakened region
There's a lot of murdered people included in that. Regions don't get weakened, people get killed. Euphemisms are a powerful drug.
Don't conflate actual goals with the justifications (human rights, freedom of speech, etc) government uses to convince own population.
I simply "disagree with their goals" (like I "disagree with the goals of Adolf Hitler"), not because they lie about them. (on the topic of thinking, not having several "truths" to keep track of really helps with that)
There is a reason these things are used as justifications in the exactly the same way a scammer will talk about gain and not loss. The fact that the scammer actually intends to scam doesn't make it any better. That they don't actually WANT to do anything good makes it worse.
If the US population the US government derives its sole legitimation from knew half of what is done in their name, to serve very, very narrow interests within the US, not theirs, they would be furious.
You're conflating all of that under "US supporting US interests", and for that end, the US has to lie to itself.
Comments
From what you quoted this looks like a reasonably executed operation. I don't see any blatant failures here. You might disagree with the goals and outcomes, but I expect the result was close to what US government expected (pro-US power, weakened region). US supports US interests, that's basically the only criteria and always was. Don't conflate actual goals with the justifications (human rights, freedom of speech, etc) government uses to convince own population.
...they don't? Yes, naturally, or they wouldn't be doing that stuff. And you might disagree with my assessment, but I don't, that's why I made it.
That's a abstraction so simplified it says nothing at all.
There's a lot of murdered people included in that. Regions don't get weakened, people get killed. Euphemisms are a powerful drug.
I simply "disagree with their goals" (like I "disagree with the goals of Adolf Hitler"), not because they lie about them. (on the topic of thinking, not having several "truths" to keep track of really helps with that)
There is a reason these things are used as justifications in the exactly the same way a scammer will talk about gain and not loss. The fact that the scammer actually intends to scam doesn't make it any better. That they don't actually WANT to do anything good makes it worse.
If the US population the US government derives its sole legitimation from knew half of what is done in their name, to serve very, very narrow interests within the US, not theirs, they would be furious.
You're conflating all of that under "US supporting US interests", and for that end, the US has to lie to itself.