- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 47,019
- Reaction score
- 22,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Under Woodrow Wilson, a North Vietnamese nationalist naively wrote a letter to the US government recognizing the US's history at being founded by declaring independence, and asking for the US to help Vietnam to be free of foreign (French) occupation. The US did not respond.
After World War 2, the Japanese who had replaced the French in Vietnam, were themselves thrown out and Vietnam was finally free. Hoi Chi Minh was still naive, and he and his allies wrote a Vietnamese declaration of independence copying from the US, and asked for the US to support their not being re-colonized. The US decided, nope, French interests come before freedom for Vietnam.
To skip ahead, the US agreed to and then reneged on a promise of elections for Vietnam, and then got into a long, devastating war that brought down our president on the basis of Vietnam representing a global communist aggression toward taking over all of Southeast Asia, which it never was; when we could have listened, and at numerous times support their independence they finally got.
In the late 1970's, the US launched a project aimed at drawing the USSR into war in Afghanistan that would weaken them, which succeeded. We armed Islamists as our proxy army against the Soviets, which also succeeded. After the Soviets were driven out, we could have engaged with Afghanistan to help them transition to a better, more stable government; instead we abandoned them for the Taliban to take power.
For decades, the US led a cold war primarily against the USSR, proclaiming the superiority secondarily of our economics, but primarily of our freedoms and governing system of democracy. When the USSR fell, we had an opportunity to work with them as a new ally and help them transition to the successful democracy the American and Russian people would like to see. Instead, we stood back as a few shadowy figures became overnight billionaires seizing the state's resources, and turned the country into a kleptocracy it's been ever since.
This century with Russia, with their small economy and the growth of the economies of the new countries on their border, it was clear Russia was going to have to adapt to a smaller role in the world - just as Britain did from their former empire. We could have had a diplomatic effort that tried to convince Putin of this, that offered carrots for him to adapt peacefully to that reduced role; instead we let things fester into this situation today.
Putting aside miscommunications like those leading Saddam to invade Kuwait, we could have done so much better after overthrowing him in Iraq than creating a disaster, allowing the country to fall into chaos, disbanding their army to become an insurgency, and so on. That seems to have simply been our own internal politics of powerful bureaucrats taking control and being incompetent.
It's not always an option for the US listening and talking to 'fix' big problems in the world, but there's a long history where it was. Where we pursued policies of blindness and neglect leading to needless tragedy. It's hard to see how it would have helped, for example, with China's monolithic government, but in examples like the ones above, it seems we could have.
Some of the causes seem to be our own corrupt interests pushing differently, our ignorance and errors and misguided ideologies, our own stubbornness to get a victory ignoring the merits.
I'd suggest we get better at listening and talking to other countries, understanding more about them, trying to improve our agenda toward justice and mutual benefit than our own power at their expense. China is pursuing power globally at US expense and we'll want to try to compete.
After World War 2, the Japanese who had replaced the French in Vietnam, were themselves thrown out and Vietnam was finally free. Hoi Chi Minh was still naive, and he and his allies wrote a Vietnamese declaration of independence copying from the US, and asked for the US to support their not being re-colonized. The US decided, nope, French interests come before freedom for Vietnam.
To skip ahead, the US agreed to and then reneged on a promise of elections for Vietnam, and then got into a long, devastating war that brought down our president on the basis of Vietnam representing a global communist aggression toward taking over all of Southeast Asia, which it never was; when we could have listened, and at numerous times support their independence they finally got.
In the late 1970's, the US launched a project aimed at drawing the USSR into war in Afghanistan that would weaken them, which succeeded. We armed Islamists as our proxy army against the Soviets, which also succeeded. After the Soviets were driven out, we could have engaged with Afghanistan to help them transition to a better, more stable government; instead we abandoned them for the Taliban to take power.
For decades, the US led a cold war primarily against the USSR, proclaiming the superiority secondarily of our economics, but primarily of our freedoms and governing system of democracy. When the USSR fell, we had an opportunity to work with them as a new ally and help them transition to the successful democracy the American and Russian people would like to see. Instead, we stood back as a few shadowy figures became overnight billionaires seizing the state's resources, and turned the country into a kleptocracy it's been ever since.
This century with Russia, with their small economy and the growth of the economies of the new countries on their border, it was clear Russia was going to have to adapt to a smaller role in the world - just as Britain did from their former empire. We could have had a diplomatic effort that tried to convince Putin of this, that offered carrots for him to adapt peacefully to that reduced role; instead we let things fester into this situation today.
Putting aside miscommunications like those leading Saddam to invade Kuwait, we could have done so much better after overthrowing him in Iraq than creating a disaster, allowing the country to fall into chaos, disbanding their army to become an insurgency, and so on. That seems to have simply been our own internal politics of powerful bureaucrats taking control and being incompetent.
It's not always an option for the US listening and talking to 'fix' big problems in the world, but there's a long history where it was. Where we pursued policies of blindness and neglect leading to needless tragedy. It's hard to see how it would have helped, for example, with China's monolithic government, but in examples like the ones above, it seems we could have.
Some of the causes seem to be our own corrupt interests pushing differently, our ignorance and errors and misguided ideologies, our own stubbornness to get a victory ignoring the merits.
I'd suggest we get better at listening and talking to other countries, understanding more about them, trying to improve our agenda toward justice and mutual benefit than our own power at their expense. China is pursuing power globally at US expense and we'll want to try to compete.
