So, has there ever been a successful US supported/installed government?

[martha]

Really, has there been? And by successful, I mean democratic, non-human rights violating, non-stealing, etc.

All I can think of are:

The Phillipines (which I can never spell): Marcos, not successful.

Panama: Noriega, not successful

Afganistan: the Taliban, not successful

Chile: Pinochet, not successful

Iran: the Shah, not successful

Iraq: Saddam Hussein (sp?), not successful

So, if Bush doesn't like Saddam, and wants to replace him, what kind of track record are we looking at here?

Many of you know a hell of a lot more about this than I do. Which ones that worked am I missing? Educate me.

 

[melon]

Japan and West Germany.

Melon

 

[martha]

'K.

 

[STING2]

South Korea and Italy.

 

[martha]

South Korea

One of the qualifications was democratic. They try, but are they really there yet?


Ok, so we've got three so far, all from World War 2.

 

[melon]

The question is whether we are interested in nation building anymore. All four of those examples are from the late 1940s-early 1950s.

Melon

 

[Giant Lemon]

This may be wrong, but according to my current political science GSI (grad student instructor) there has never been a successful democratic government installed in a country solely by the US.

 

[STING2]

By the way, the USA did not install or support the Taliban in Afghanistan. The USA did not install Saddam, but did provide some support in the form of military intelligence about Iranian military positions, favorable trade relations, money for food, trucks and transport helicopters. It should be realized over the years the USA through the marshall plan provided support to multiple countries in Western Europe and has since provided support to dozens of other democracies around the world. So support is kind of a broad term to be using here.

 

[melon]

This may be wrong, but according to my current political science GSI (grad student instructor) there has never been a successful democratic government installed in a country solely by the US.

Japan was solely occupied by the U.S. for 10 years following World War II. You can tell your GSI that (s)he is wrong.

Melon

 

[STING2]

South Korea is a democracy.

 

[martha]

Maybe now, but when I was younger, I remember the big shit when an opposition candidate was allowed to run.

 

[Giant Lemon]

Thanks for the info, melon.

 

[martha]

By the way, the USA did not install or support the Taliban in Afghanistan.



The USA did not install Saddam, but did provide some support in the form of military intelligence about Iranian military positions, favorable trade relations, money for food, trucks and transport helicopters.

The Taliban was fighting the Soviets with my tax dollars. That's support.

Your buddy Saddam was againt Iran so he got support.


But I'll give you those two.

I'm still waiting for modern examples of regime changes sponsored by the US that haven't come back to bite us in the ass. I'll have to wait until tomorrow though, 'cause it's past my bedtime.

 

[STING2]

Martha,

The Taliban did not exist back in the 1980s. The US supported the Mujahadeen back in the 1980s against Soviet Occupation of the country. In 1989 when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, the USA pulled out of the region. After much civil war between various factions in Afghanistan, the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan in 1996 with the aid of Pakistan. Much of the Mujahadeen we had supported back in the 1980s formed the North Alliance and fought the Taliban every year while they were in power. We would later support the Northern Alliance in 2001 and help them overthrow the Taliban.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

and sting2, lets talk about the northern alliance for a moment, shall we?

from what ive heard theyre just as evil as the taliban themselves.

 

[martha]

^

I was thinking that myself.



So, no one thought of any during the night?

 

[Giant Lemon]

This doesn't really answer your question, martha, but I came across this site which I think is interesting:

US Interventions 1945 to 1999

 

[martha]

On the contrary, GL; I think it answers my question perfectly.

Anybody else care to comment?

 

[follower]

Brazil, 1961-64:

What it is said in that report is accurated, unfortunetaly. My father was persecuted and imprisoned. The silly man thought it was worth to fight to keep his legally elected President Jango Goulart in power. It still hurts to remember that.

 

[Klaus]

follower: *pssssh* we are talking about US success stories - not about all the dictators who were installed by the US

Klaus

 

[follower]

I?m not blaming anybody Klaus, who am I to do that anyways? If we hadn?t our own greedy bastards at that time I believe things could have been different. I?m just saying that the facts reported there, all they say about what happened here during those 15 years in Brazil, are correct, and we had our share in my family. I have my reasons to think that whatever were the intenttions of US government at that time, they chose the wrong guys to help to get the power.

I don?t mean to offend anyone, please.

 

[martha]

I have my reasons to think that whatever were the intenttions of US government at that time, they chose the wrong guys to help to get the power.

I don?t mean to offend anyone, please.

The truth does not offend, follower.



You have stated my point. I was really hoping that someone could come up with an example of a US-installed government that actually worked, but all that anyone could cite was the three from WW2.

Which leads to my second point. Everyone's all hot for a "regime change" in Iraq, thinking that it will magically solve the problems the US has there. Oh, and suddenly "liberate" the Iraqis. From what we've seen, it doesn't appear that this will be all that successful.

 

[Klaus]

follower :
Sorry i didn't want to offend you, i tried to be sarcastic with my last mail, but maybe one smiley wasn't enough to show this.

Martha:
Well the sad thing is that it seems noone has made plans how to turn the iraq into a democracy.
I'm affraid that the only idea they have is "those europeans can care for it - we will be bussy with North Korea and Iran after that"

Klaus

 

[Scarletwine]

WOW, I finally read though the link provided, while they can't all be substantiated (at least from the article) I was amazed at the number of incidents I was not familiar with.

 

[martha]

while they can't all be substantiated (at least from the article)

Are you assuming that he's making them up simply because the article appears to be a digest?

 

[Zooropa]

The truth does not offend, follower.



You have stated my point. I was really hoping that someone could come up with an example of a US-installed government that actually worked, but all that anyone could cite was the three from WW2.

Which leads to my second point. Everyone's all hot for a "regime change" in Iraq, thinking that it will magically solve the problems the US has there. Oh, and suddenly "liberate" the Iraqis. From what we've seen, it doesn't appear that this will be all that successful.

I think a big difference with Afghanistan and/or Iraq vs. some of the less succesful attempts at regime change, is the very nature of how we are going about it. It is out in front, in the open, for the whole world to judge us by, rather than covert ops or quite interference. The American public will hold the government responsible if it fails. No?

 

[martha]

It is out in front, in the open, for the whole world to judge us by, rather than covert ops or quite interference. The American public will hold the government responsible if it fails. No?

The other ones may have been executed covertly, but the whole world knew about them anyway, especially the people who were directly affected. It doesn't matter a damn if we "hold the government responsible" or not. What about the people who are living in the sovereign nation who get their government chosen by our government? And how do you propose we fix it when it fails and people end up tortured to death? Say "sorry" and then install another government?

The whole world has judged us, that's why there isn't much support for this whole thing outside of the foreign goverment insiders who have a stake in kissing the ass of the US.

 

[Zooropa]

The other ones may have been executed covertly, but the whole world knew about them anyway, especially the people who were directly affected. It doesn't matter a damn if we "hold the government responsible" or not. What about the people who are living in the sovereign nation who get their government chosen by our government? And how do you propose we fix it when it fails and people end up tortured to death? Say "sorry" and then install another government?

The whole world has judged us, that's why there isn't much support for this whole thing outside of the foreign goverment insiders who have a stake in kissing the ass of the US.

OK, do you propose that we just leave Hussein alone? Remove him from power, and leave? (this of course has been a major criticism of US foreign policy lately in both Afghanistan and Iraq, our kinda love'em and leave'em). Iraq is also not a question of arbitrary involvement, nor is it a reactionary move to combat a percieved threat. Neither was Afghanistan. The Taliban Government represented a severe threat to the US, and the world, as does Iraq's current government. Both the Taliban and Hussein have been given every opportunity to resolve these conflicts peacefully and neither took the opportunity. So, we have to get involved. We over through the Taliban, and are now involved in rebuilding Afghanistan, and unless Hussein stops playing games, we will remove him as well. At that point we will have no choice but to install a new government. Our involvement is not ideological, as it was during the cold war, it is necessity.


Also, isn't Grenada a democratic government that was installed by the US? I may be wrong about this though....

 

[martha]

Have the US installed governments ever worked? No. Now if you suddenly think that it will work in Afganistan and Iraq, then you didn't pay attention. Why replece one shitty government with another? I'm not debating the whole Iraq thing; my point is that if Bush claims to want a "regime change" and the people in the US believe him, then they might want to think about the past track record of the US. Bush should decide why he wants Saddam's head on a plate and be honest about it. All this babbling on about some kind of "benefit" for the Iraqis is bullshit.

addition/edit: Also, what gives us the right to select a government for a foreign nation? Especially when you consider that the other ones we've put into place have usually been worse than the ones replaced?

 

[Zooropa]

Have the US installed governments ever worked? No. Now if you suddenly think that it will work in Afganistan and Iraq, then you didn't pay attention. Why replece one shitty government with another? I'm not debating the whole Iraq thing; my point is that if Bush claims to want a "regime change" and the people in the US believe him, then they might want to think about the past track record of the US. Bush should decide why he wants Saddam's head on a plate and be honest about it. All this babbling on about some kind of "benefit" for the Iraqis is bullshit.

addition/edit: Also, what gives us the right to select a government for a foreign nation? Especially when you consider that the other ones we've put into place have usually been worse than the ones replaced?

Yes they have, as evidence by the ones mentioned earlier. Have they been as succesful lately? No so much, but does that me we give up on nation building? I don't think so. Just because it hasn't been as sucessful recently, doesn't me we give up. That is extremely flawed logic. No question that our foreign policy over the last 30 or so years has been questionable, but I believe, and I think this administration does as well, that you learn from past mistakes. Afghanistan is a supurb example of this.

Bush has laid out his reasons quite clearly, and it baffles me that many don't see it. UN Resolution clearly states that complete compliance is necessary, yet Hussein is clearly not in compliance. He has been given EVERY opportunity to comply fully, and yet he still doesn't. Yet some how, this is about Bush. What exactly isn't clear? If Hussein is in violation in anyway, the UN has the responsibilty to enforce the resolution, otherwise it becomes a "STOP!! or I'll just say stop again." The legitamacy of the UN is in question here. Leadership is strength in the face of adversity, Leadership is done by example. Bush is a leader, as is Blair. If the rest of the world wants to be cowards, let them do so, but we are dealing with a dictator that without question, is a threat to the Middle East, and most certainly to the rest of the world.

What gives us the right to install a democratic government. Well, to use your own words, are you paying attention? This isn't an arbitrary action, if we wish to remove Hussein from power, when he is gone, there will be a power vacume. New leadership will have to be put in place in Iraq. US involvement here is key, otherwise the situation will most likely decay into a civil war. Thus a situation that would be completely out of control.