It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Intentions Misguided for Democratic Nation-Building?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:17 AM
As I was reading the latest about the corruption in the government of Afghanistan here it brought to mind the continuous problem we seem to find with our good intentions as a nation.

Vietnam was a similar problem. The corruption of the government of S. Vietnam prevented our establishing a trustworthy and honest regime of politicians who came from the people.

While we need stability, and promote freedom, are our efforts thwarted by our optimism? In other words, are we so believing that the US can bring resolution to any large world problem that we act blindly on each opportunity?

Assuming we want stability in the Middle East, Korea, etc., does it make sense that we keep building governments of locals that are full of corruption to the point that they cannot function? Do the locals have sufficient education to bear the burden of decision-making regarding the establishment of their own government-building processes?

Based on Vietnam and Afghanistan, and perhaps Iraq...looks like the answer may be "No!"

What solution can we have for this problem? Do we ignore the problems of other countries and allow them to defuse and resettle on their own? Do we allow these other countries to kill their own citizenry, as in Pol Pot, or do we intervene?

It seems we ride on the decisions of WWI and WWII to intervene. Some say the reasons we intervened in those wars may have been contrived, just as the intervention of Vietnam from the naval attack may have been a setup. The Lusitania had, in fact, a belly full of munitions and the Germans were correct in sinking it, although it had lost many lives. However, it caused us to enter the war.

We are becoming well-known for not thinking things in "no exit strategy" and "no time-line for withdrawal." Perhaps we have not thought through the basic idea that we are not set to make the decisions to save or stabilize other countries. Perhaps we should "pre-consider" the type of citizenry we are saving, to see if they can cooperate honestly and help save themselves.

Could it be another futile effort to save Iraq and Afghanistan as democracies, when a democracy needs educated and honest citizens to survive? In 20 years, will honor and honesty prevail, allowing Iraq and Afghanistan citizens to flourish in freedom?

Would it be better to establish the government with Americans, and gradually re-educate these countries to a level that they can cope with self-government?

If we were to take over, and set up the government with Americans on a long-term basis, wouldn't that appear imperialistic?

Is there any way to win in these situations?


log in