The attitude seemed to be that if our guys couldn't be as cruel as the bad guys, the bad guys would have some form of advantage. This was a massive miscalculation; the cruelty we permitted in these countries, which were publicly idetified as our clients, did our cause no good and a great deal of harm.
Wait... Are you saying that the "bad guys" actually committed acts of terror or torture to such an extent that the "good guys" felt they were displaying weakness by not matching or exceeding their violence?
Where are the reams of data that details these atrocities?
There really no point of arguing this issue if you continue to resort to stereotyping US involvement as being supportive and encouraging to dictatorships.
Just like the evening news, only the bad things ever make it into press and no one researches the good things that US assistance has done and what continues to be the primary focus of our foreign policy, Free trade and political freedom.
Face it, the world just isn't as clear cut and simple as you folks would like to make it out to be. There is evil you CAN fight, and evil you CAN'T fight, depending on the most pressing priorities and relationships that are involved.
In fighting the greater evil of Totalitarianism, we oftentimes find ourselve "in bed" and interacting with some unsavory individuals and gov'ts. DEA agents working overseas are forced to do this even now.
But sometimes we find individuals in our gov't just pandering to some special commercial interest and not thinking through the repercussions of their actions. Actions that often in motion a chain of events that has unexpected consequences. The oil sector has been the most pronounced example of that (and maybe the Banana coup in Honduras engineered by the Dulles brothers).
Regards,
Ron
|
