Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "Ramsey Clark is well-meaning, but his approach to world politics leads to disasters. For example, he urged Jimmy Carter not to assist the Shah of Iran, but to let the Iranians "determine their own fate." This lead to the Ayatollah Khomeini and a lot of misery for the Iranians."
The US has very little influence on the citizens of Iran. This is as true now as it was back in 1976. The US can't even influence its own citizens to not smoke.
Every time the US does try to influence another country's citizens the result is pretty much the same. They feel that the US is sticking its nose in their business and they react to it by going the other way. Not surprisingly, the same thing happens when foreign nations try to influence things in the United States.
It simply is not in the human genome to allow foreigners to run ones own country.
Iran had plenty of cash, they've got lots of oil. If the Shah was a survivable regime, he could have (and undoubtedly did) buy weapons from plenty of world providers. That he was put out is an indication that his citizens weren't too fond of him.
Our support of unpopular regimes is what got us into the Vietnam meat grinder, and the same mistake, but with less serious consequences, has led to problems besides the one in Iran.
The only reason we supported the Shah was because he was our bastard. That Carter dropped support before it became a matter of truly big bucks or American lives is an indication that the guy had some sense. A decade later the whole reason for needing guys like the Shah on our side disappeared when the USSR went tits up.
We're not that powerful, nor is our understanding of the political situation in obscure countries on the other side of the planet that good. Most of the world is going to have to learn to just get by without the US telling them how to live their lives. I don't know how they'll get by, but I'm guessing that they will find a way.
Of your other examples, the Cambodian intervention would have been a humanitarian thing, but our stupid intervention in Vietnam poisoned the waters. Rwanda would have been a good thing, I blame that one on the occupant of the White House at the time. Eastern europe was a hopeless case. If you look at a map, you will see that the NATO / Warsaw Pact boundary was drawn where it was for very obvious military reasons having to do with "salients" and all that. To try and move into the various countries in Eastern Europe would have vastly expanded our defensive lines, and left us subject to much easier attack.
Re: "Letting nations "determine their own fate" sounds very high-minded, but the results can be very bloody."
(1) At least the blood isn't on our own hands.
(2) When we do get involved, since the only truly controllable tool we have is the military, the result is not going to be bloodless, and on occasion has been extraordinarily bloody.
Sometimes there just isn't a perfect solution to a problem, and you have to go with the best that can be done. Sometimes the best that can be done is nothing.
-- Carl |
