At the risk of garnering controversy, I understand why and even support it.
The reality is that there is seldom a great choice in many places. It's usually choosing between two or more dictators.
When the US supported South Vietnam, it's not that they condoned everything south vietnam did, but had to make a tactical choice between lesser evils.
I guess my takeaway is there is a pragmatic versus idealistic debate here. Ideally America really does want liberal democracies -- if every other nation was a France or Korea, we would be better off.
But there is a pragmatic reality that funding non-free leaders may be a local maximum of stability.
When the US supported South Vietnam, it's not that they condoned everything south vietnam did, but had to make a tactical choice between lesser evils.
But why get involved at all? The US didn't have to do anything.
Most of the reason the U.S. gets involved in anything has to do with geopolitics. If there are human rights issues or "freedom" issues then this is just a bonus for justification purposes.
I highly recommend the Ken Burns documentary "The Vietnam War". I'm old enough to remember all the propaganda we were fed, it is just amazing how much we were lied to.
I can agree with this take. While it's true that there is a large financial incentive, I think it is easy for us with our cozy lives in modern developed countries to forget how dangerous, corrupt, and unstable many developing nations are.
Comments
At the risk of garnering controversy, I understand why and even support it.
The reality is that there is seldom a great choice in many places. It's usually choosing between two or more dictators.
When the US supported South Vietnam, it's not that they condoned everything south vietnam did, but had to make a tactical choice between lesser evils.
I guess my takeaway is there is a pragmatic versus idealistic debate here. Ideally America really does want liberal democracies -- if every other nation was a France or Korea, we would be better off.
But there is a pragmatic reality that funding non-free leaders may be a local maximum of stability.
But why get involved at all? The US didn't have to do anything.
Most of the reason the U.S. gets involved in anything has to do with geopolitics. If there are human rights issues or "freedom" issues then this is just a bonus for justification purposes.
I highly recommend the Ken Burns documentary "The Vietnam War". I'm old enough to remember all the propaganda we were fed, it is just amazing how much we were lied to.
I can agree with this take. While it's true that there is a large financial incentive, I think it is easy for us with our cozy lives in modern developed countries to forget how dangerous, corrupt, and unstable many developing nations are.