Quote from: Tyberious FunkI think you missed the point of the article.  The author was simply citing the Afghan war as an example of US foreign policies that had a profound impact on an entire country (Pakistan), but rate little more than a blip in US history.  It's not about whether US decisions were right or wrong, or whether it could have bee done better.

I honestly don't see the distinction except as a matter of degree.  But, OK, what could the US have done better based on the information that they had at the time?

There are certainly plenty of other examples of American foreign policy backing either dictators (e.g., Pinochet) or revolutionaries (e.g., The Contras) that had profound effects on the countries in question but they are never as simple as all that.  For example, Cambodia is an example of a country where the post-Nixon Democrat-controlled Congress cut off funding for the right-wing dictator Lon Nol in Cambodia so that the peaceful agrarian communist reformers known as the Khmer Rouge could take over the country.  In that case where we do get to see what happened when the U.S. stopped interfering and let the local civil unrest sort itself out, about a third of the country was murdered.  

So what would have happened if the United States hadn't backed General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq or General Augusto Pinochet or any number of other dictators during the Cold War and left those countries to their own means or the influence of the Soviet Union?  Would those countries now be ruled by benevolent democratic governments and be filled with people who love America or would they have descended into a living Hell like Cambodia?  Remember, plenty of people earnestly believed that the Khmer Rouge would be good for Cambodia.

So, yes, I'm sure the people of Pakistan resent the United States for backing General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq but what would have happened if the United States hadn't backed him?  Would he have fallen from power sooner?  Would he have gotten backing from the Soviet Union?  Might he have started a war with India to polarize the region?  Why do people only imagine the rosy scenarios and never the Cambodias, even though history has shown us that the Cambodias and Rwandas and Darfurs happen, too?

And it's always easy to imagine what might have been done better, after the fact, when you can see the results of what was done and can only imagine what wasn't done, and imagine that what wasn't done would have only turned out better, not worse.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkIn any event, apparently the US wanted the Soviets in Afghanistan.  At least, according Zbigniew Brzezinski who was a national security advisor to Carter at the time.

Do you have a citation on that?  If so, then Carter was even less deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than I thought.

Good essay Jong. It was passed around here when it was first published. It goes nicely with the Granta edition of essays by a series of different authors on America. If you can find it, it's worth a read.

Regards,
David R

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThere are none so blind as those who will not see.

What am I supposed to see?  A peaceful world fully of happy and prosperous people singing Kumbaya if only the United States wouldn't meddle in the affairs of others or perhaps a world full of nightmares every bit as bad and maybe worse than what we have now, but for which the United States isn't responsible, if only the United States wouldn't meddle in the affairs of others?  Or am I supposed to imagine a United States ruled by people so perfect that they can reliably predict the results of their policies and never make mistakes so that the United States only does good and never does bad?

That's what I'm asking.  

OK, so I know people think the United States does bad things and I know the United States has had a hand in bad things happening but what's the alternative?  In the past, you've commented on being an adult about things like this.  Being an adult means not simply saying what's wrong but suggesting a better alternative and being able to explain why it's a better alternative.  Simply saying that backing the military dictator is always wrong is naive because we have examples where the United States didn't back the military dictator and things got even worse.

So, if you think the criticism of US policy in Pakistan is legitimate, what specifically should the United States have done differently that would have turned out better?  And if there is no answer for that question, then isn't it a bit silly to hold the United States responsible for a decision it made when you don't have a better specific alternative?

Quote from: John MorrowAnd it's always easy to imagine what might have been done better, after the fact, when you can see the results of what was done and can only imagine what wasn't done, and imagine that what wasn't done would have only turned out better, not worse.

As I understand it, the outrage was that the US (usualy called the CIA in this context) wanted a scorched earth policy. They wanted to stop the spread of communism, and fragile new democracies were not up to snuff.

By way of rough analogy, how would you like it if some forign power trained the Manson family* to fight like world class commandos? Of course you'd be happy that President Manson protected you from the whatever-ists, but in the back of your mind, you'd always wonder what America could have become without Helter Skelter.

*(I selected the Manson family because they were the top result when I googled "craziest cult.")

The point of the article is not that US interference has prevented the world from being a utopia, but that US interference has created resentment against the US.

The article is not talking about whether the interference was in the end better or worse than no interference, or should have been some different kind of interference, but that the interference itself created the resentment.

That's what you won't see. The US barges into a country interfering with its affairs uninvited, that pisses people off. Generations ago the British learned this lesson. They said, "Surely the natives would rather have good rule by foreigners than bad rule by locals?" The answer turned out to be, "Nope." Countries just want to be left alone, pretty much.

They want some help with natural disasters, and maybe some technical advice with big engineering projects and the like, but on the whole they'd like to be left alone. They don't want to be invaded, have coups sponsored against their governments (good or bad), have sanctions against them, have their dictators lent vast amounts of cash, have their secret police trained in torture, or anything like that. They just want to be left alone.

The US forces its way in when it's not wanted, and refuses to go in when it is wanted (cf, any one of dozens of UN missions). That creates resentment. At the very best you'll be perceived as one of those interfering mothers-in-law. "But dear, I'm just saying this for your own good." "Maybe, but it's my marriage and children - just leave us alone." At the worst you get September 11.

You can argue intentions and coulda woulda shoulda as much as you like. But the simple truth is that most countries wish that Great Powers would just leave them the fuck alone. Whether those minor powers would be better or worse off with or without that interference is irrelevant to the fact that they resent the interference. Maybe if I listened to my mother my relationship with my woman would be much better - but in the end, it's none of her fucking business.

When you interfere uninvited, countries resent you. It's not really that complicated.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe point of the article is not that US interference has prevented the world from being a utopia, but that US interference has created resentment against the US.

Correct.  And a lack of US interference has also created resentment against the United States in other situations.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe article is not talking about whether the interference was in the end better or worse than no interference, or should have been some different kind of interference, but that the interference itself created the resentment.

So that suggests that the way to avoid resentment is to avoid interference, even if in the end that means things are far worse for the people who feel the resentment.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's what you won't see. The US barges into a country interfering with its affairs uninvited, that pisses people off. Generations ago the British learned this lesson. They said, "Surely the natives would rather have good rule by foreigners than bad rule by locals?" The answer turned out to be, "Nope." Countries just want to be left alone, pretty much.

And whole countries are of one mind on such things, right?  So when the Hutus were slaughtering the Tutsis in Rwanda, members of both tribal groups were in equal agreement about being left alone, right?  And when the US and NATO bombed Serbia over Kosovo, the Kosovo Albanians just wanted to be left alone as much as the Serbians did, right?  And the anti-Taliban Afghanis that the United States helped take over didn't appreciate the US interference in Afghanistan any more than the Taliban did and I must be imagining those commercials by the Kurds thanking the US for not leaving them alone in Iraq.  And isn't it curious that one of the factions in the recent Nicaraguan election brought in Oliver North, notorious for interfering in Nicaraguan affairs via the Contras, because he's very popular among many in Nicaragua when such interference supposedly only causes resentment.  And I'm sure all of those Vietnamese who got into leaky boats to leave Vietnam were happy that the United States abandoned it's war effort in Vietnam and cut off military aid to the South Vietnamese government.  That must be why so many came to the United States.

Don't you think the idea that foreign countries and everyone in them speak with a single voice and have common opinions about things is just a little patronizing and simplistic?  

Quote from: Kyle AaronThey want some help with natural disasters, and maybe some technical advice with big engineering projects and the like, but on the whole they'd like to be left alone. They don't want to be invaded, have coups sponsored against their governments (good or bad), have sanctions against them, have their dictators lent vast amounts of cash, have their secret police trained in torture, or anything like that. They just want to be left alone.

Do you really think it's that simple?  You don't think the United States also gets resented for not interfering and never gets thanked for interfering?

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe US forces its way in when it's not wanted, and refuses to go in when it is wanted (cf, any one of dozens of UN missions). That creates resentment.

And what you need to realize is that many of those dozens of UN missions are just as resented by someone as the US-led missions.  By their very nature, almost all interference is done on the behalf of one local faction at the expense of another.  Yes, the Bosnians and Albanians in the Balkans might be happy that the UN is there but plenty of Serbs aren't happy about it.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAt the very best you'll be perceived as one of those interfering mothers-in-law. "But dear, I'm just saying this for your own good." "Maybe, but it's my marriage and children - just leave us alone." At the worst you get September 11.

OK, Kyle, take a good look at who as responsible for September 11th.  We're talking about the same people that Mohsin Hamid complains that the US helped in the 1980s and for years, people pretty much left the Taliban alone.  And the United States intervened on the behalf of Muslims in Kosovo.  Look at the social class of those involved.  And bear in mind that it was French commandos, not Americans, who were called into Mecca by the Saudi royal family in 1979.  So where is the resentment of the French?  Yes, it's a very nice narrative about poor downtrodden Muslims who resent American interference and presence in their part of the world but too many of the details just don't fit that narrative.  In fact, they didn't talk at all about Israel and the Palestinians until they realized that was part of the expected narrative.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou can argue intentions and coulda woulda shoulda as much as you like. But the simple truth is that most countries wish that Great Powers would just leave them the fuck alone. Whether those minor powers would be better or worse off with or without that interference is irrelevant to the fact that they resent the interference. Maybe if I listened to my mother my relationship with my woman would be much better - but in the end, it's none of her fucking business.

Sure, but isn't that a fairly childish attitude to have?  Seriously.  What you are basically saying is that people want to do their own thing regardless of the results of their choices and don't want advice even if it's good advice.  Doesn't that describe a typical adolescent attitude toward things?

   When I was young and knew everything
And she a punk who rarely ever took advice

[...]

(Chorus)
For the life of me I cannot remember
What made us think that we were wise and
We'd never compromise
For the life of me I cannot believe
We'd ever die for these sins
We were merely freshmen

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhen you interfere uninvited, countries resent you. It's not really that complicated.

I never said I didn't understand that.  My point is to ask what the alternative is.  If the alternative is worse or the United States will be resented for not interfering, then perhaps it is worth it to be resented or perhaps the resentment is simply inevitable.

How naive of you, Kyle. Don't you know, the march of freedom needs footsoldiers. Democracy is too precious to be left in the hands of just anyone.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumAs I understand it, the outrage was that the US (usualy called the CIA in this context) wanted a scorched earth policy. They wanted to stop the spread of communism, and fragile new democracies were not up to snuff.

And my point is that there are examples of where the US pulled it's hands away and let the chips fall where they may.  In Vietnam, we wound up with 200,000 dead in Cambodia and a flood of refugees into Thailand and leaving in leaky boats.  In Cambodia, the post-Nixon Democrat-controlled Congress cut off funding to right-wing dictator Lon Nol in Cambodia to let the Cambodians sort it out (i.e., let the Khmer Rouge win) and a third of that country was murdered.  We've been leaving our hands off of various countries in Africa for years and the results can best be described as anarchy.  And the track record of many Soviet client states dwarfs any American client state when it comes to hardship, starvation, and mass murder.  So it's not as if these policies occurred in a vacuum or if the United States had just kept it's hands off, everything was guaranteed to turn out OK.  As I said earlier, we'll never get to see the alternative but I think it's naive to assume the alternative would always have been better, even though there are times when it may have been.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumBy way of rough analogy, how would you like it if some forign power trained the Manson family* to fight like world class commandos? Of course you'd be happy that President Manson protected you from the whatever-ists, but in the back of your mind, you'd always wonder what America could have become without Helter Skelter.

Sure.  But rational resentment (as opposed to the adolescent sort that Kyle is talking about) would require that I believe that things would have been better off without the interference.  If I thought, say, 30,000 Americans killed by those crazy Mansons died for nothing, I'd resent the people who put the Mansons in power.  But if I thought those 30,000 Americans died, perhaps including some members of my own family, to prevent 30 million Americans from dying under an American Pol Pot, resentment would be pretty silly.  That's why I find it difficult to separate the resentment from the alternatives and the imagined results under those alternatives.

Again, I said that the problem was that the US goes in when not invited, and refuses to go in when it is invited.

It's not really very complicated.

Sure, whatever you do or don't do someone will hate you. But that'd be another aspect of that "adulthood" you're talking about - you realise that you can't please everyone. All you can do is avoid pissing off almost everyone.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat you are basically saying is that people want to do their own thing regardless of the results of their choices and don't want advice even if it's good advice. Doesn't that describe a typical adolescent attitude toward things?

You can look at it that way. Or you can look at it as an adult attitude to things. As an adult, you want to be able to do your own thing without interference or unasked for advice.

If you don't believe me, think of some friend or relative of yours who at least occasionally has some family problems. Force your way into their home and start giving them advice on fixing them up. Or at least ring them up every day to tell them. If they complain, just say that they're "a typical adolescent". See what happens.

The true adolescent is the one who thinks they know what's good for everyone else. Can we name a country which thinks it knows what's good for everyone else? An adult has a degree of humility and respect for others. "Well, I certainly made mistakes, and still do - here are the mistakes I've made, perhaps you can learn from them. Aside from that, good luck, and call me if you need me."

Again, this has nothing to do with whether the US's interference or lack thereof has done good or not. People just like to be left alone to handle their own affairs. If they want help they'll ask for it.

That's what the article's about. That's the key to the whole thing, and it's something that Americans are rather slow to understand. The world wants you to leave them alone. Just have normal diplomacy and trade. When you mess about in another country's affairs, more likely than not you'll piss someone off. Do it for long enough and eventually everyone will hate you.

That's part of being an empire - the colonies will hate you, the people under the puppet regimes will hate you, your rivals will hate you. If you don't want to be hated, stop being an empire. "What have the Romans ever done for us, then, eh?" may have been a joke, but it's true.Since, like the British were, you're convinced you know better what's good for those "adolescent" countries than they do, perhaps you'll like Kipling,

  Take up the White Man's burden--
  And reap his old reward:
  The blame of those ye better,
  The hate of those ye guard--

It's really not very complicated. You mess around in people's countries, they hate you. Mind your own business, they don't. It's nothing to me, really. I just want my own country to stop joining in. We can do without the hatred. We do enough stupid and immoral things without joining in on your messes.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAgain, I said that the problem was that the US goes in when not invited, and refuses to go in when it is invited.

It's not really very complicated.

It's not very complicated if you ignore the details.  Who is doing the inviting, Kyle?  There is almost always a local faction that wants the US there and a faction that doesn't.  What makes one faction's invitation legitimate and another factions invitation illegitimate?  Sure, Mohsin Hamid's family didn't want the US supporting General Zia but I bet General Zia had supporters who were happy that the US was involved.  I doubt the US was making General Zia take their money at gunpoint against his will and isn't he also a Pakistani?

Quote from: Kyle AaronSure, whatever you do or don't do someone will hate you. But that'd be another aspect of that "adulthood" you're talking about - you realise that you can't please everyone. All you can do is avoid pissing off almost everyone.

And we don't piss off almost everyone, even though the left-wing media carefully selects who it interviews to give that impression.  For example, I'm sure that CNN would rather interview you than ex-PM Howard if they wanted to represent the Australian position on the United States.

As I pointed out, if you listen to the mainstream media, the US intervention with the Contras in Nicaragua was uninvited and caused great resentment yet how to you square that with Nicaraguan politicians inviting Oliver North, the architect of Iran-Contra, to Nicaragua to campaign for a candidate and get votes?  Doesn't that suggest that maybe US intervention on behalf of the Contras was welcomed by many Nicaraguans and that it was the Democrats who opposed funding the Contras who were out of touch?  And, yes, I know Daniel Ortega ultimately won that election -- with less than 40% of the vote because the vote on the right was split.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou can look at it that way. Or you can look at it as an adult attitude to things. As an adult, you want to be able to do your own thing without interference or unasked for advice.

That's not being an adult.  That's being an adolescent.  Somewhere along the way people stopped growing up and started confusing being an adolescent who is independent enough to ignore advice with being an adult.  Adults understand and deal with obligations.  Marriage requires commitment and compromise and being willing to listen to someone other than yourself.  That's why adolescents are so bad at it.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIf you don't believe me, think of some friend or relative of yours who at least occasionally has some family problems. Force your way into their home and start giving them advice on fixing them up. Or at least ring them up every day to tell them. If they complain, just say that they're "a typical adolescent". See what happens.

Like an adolescent, they'll throw a hissy fit.  That's what adolescents do.  They feel.  They don't think.  Do I really need to explain this to you?

Haven't you ever heard of an "intervention"?  How about a "support group"?  And do you know how "adults" with problems fare when they ignore their family and don't seek help?  And, of course, you assume the person has no obligations or responsibilities because, well, adolescents can't be bothered with such things.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe true adolescent is the one who thinks they know what's good for everyone else.

Really?  Most adolescents I know of only care about themselves.  Or are you saying that if your mother gives you advice about your relationship with a woman that might actually make that relationship better that she's being the adolescent for giving the advice and you are being an adult for ignoring it?  That's a pretty upside-down world you've got there down under.

Quote from: Kyle AaronCan we name a country which thinks it knows what's good for everyone else?

I didn't know that countries had opinions or thoughts.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAn adult has a degree of humility and respect for others. "Well, I certainly made mistakes, and still do - here are the mistakes I've made, perhaps you can learn from them. Aside from that, good luck, and call me if you need me."

Really?  Take a look at the contrast between the values of boys and men in gangs and adult men with families and responsibilities and tell me which group is obsessed with respect, popularity, and freedom.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAgain, this has nothing to do with whether the US's interference or lack thereof has done good or not. People just like to be left alone to handle their own affairs. If they want help they'll ask for it.

And as I've pointed out, what happens when, say, the Kurds want the United States to invade Iraq and the Sunnis don't?  What happens when the Kosovo Albanians want the US to invade but the Serbs don't?  Countries don't speak with one clear voice and often, one part of a country doesn't want to be left alone while another part does.

Suppose you know two people who are lovers.  One starts smacking the other around.  The one being smacked around calls you and the other grabs the phone and tells you to mind your own business.  What do you do?  Do you default to leaving them alone?

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's what the article's about. That's the key to the whole thing, and it's something that Americans are rather slow to understand. The world wants you to leave them alone. Just have normal diplomacy and trade. When you mess about in another country's affairs, more likely than not you'll piss someone off. Do it for long enough and eventually everyone will hate you.

But the reality doesn't bear that out.  There are Nicaraguans who are thankful that the United States backed the Contras, there are Chileans happy that the United States backed Pinochet, there are Cubans in exile that drive the US sanctions against Cuba, and there are Kurds running commercials thanking the US for invading Iraq.  Maybe it would help if you stopped anthropomorphizing countries.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's part of being an empire - the colonies will hate you, the people under the puppet regimes will hate you, your rivals will hate you. If you don't want to be hated, stop being an empire. "What have the Romans ever done for us, then, eh?" may have been a joke, but it's true.

And what happened when Rome fell?  Does the term "Dark Ages" ring a bell?  

Quote from: Kyle AaronSince, like the British were, you're convinced you know better what's good for those "adolescent" countries than they do, perhaps you'll like Kipling,

  Take up the White Man's burden--
  And reap his old reward:
  The blame of those ye better,
  The hate of those ye guard--

And if the British had never had an Empire, what would the world look like?

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's really not very complicated. You mess around in people's countries, they hate you. Mind your own business, they don't. It's nothing to me, really. I just want my own country to stop joining in. We can do without the hatred. We do enough stupid and immoral things without joining in on your messes.

But they don't all hate us, Kyle, nor do they all hate the British.  Some of them are even happy that we messed around in their countries.  The world isn't a simple place and you should stop believing it is.  And the most important thing in life isn't being well liked at any particular moment.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"Praise Allah, you are right! We put down our weapons and return to farming. We grow things Americans want to buy, have much trade with your country! Long live Uncle Sam!"

You are aware that the Taliban dealt with poppy farming very harshly, right?

"We're adult and sensible and know what's good for the world, and anyone who disagrees with us is just adolescent."

Like I said, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Doesn't worry me. Just don't stumble into my country.