The United States did not even entertain the idea of a commitment to regime change until about 20 years ago. Before that, it dealt with regimes on the ground, according to whether they were compatible with, or hostile to, American interests. The difference in treatment had nothing to do with whether they had large social budgets. India, for example, proclaimed itself neutralist and socialist under Nehru, and we continued to try to woo it into the Western bloc. Israel is still one of the most socialist countries outside of the Communist bloc, and has long been our ally. Much of Western Europe, of course, has at various times been ruled by socialist parties, and even when the more conservative parties win election, have continued at higher levels of social spending than the United States. Many Third World regimes were neutralist, and yet continued to receive substantial aid from the United States, because of fear that the Soviet Union would fill the gap. Indeed, it became a joke how many regimes played the Americans and the Soviets off of one another.
United States foreign policy, for most of the post- War periond, was guided by the doctrine of containment of the Soviet Union. You may agree or disagree with that strategic doctrine, but it is the general rationale more or less applicable to the various interventions you mention. We were trying to prevent the "correlation of forces" from favoring the Soviet Union........ |
