Any student of history would be skeptical. The US record after interference in a country is abysmal. Relatively recent failures: Iraq, Afghanistan. Less recent failures: Nicaragua and throughout Central America.
Iraq was a textbook example of why you don't dismantle the entire administrative state.
I don't think either is relevant here. Other central american shenanigans are the better reference points IMO.
No strongman in charge, sorta-kinda democratic government (more democratic than almost anywhere else in the Arab world), violence has subsided, the country didn't disintegrate into pieces unlike Yugoslavia, the economy has grown moderately, and they haven't become an Iranian puppet regime.
Frankly, by the standards of the Near and Middle East, this is very much not an abysmal failure.
The insurgency that preceded this was very bad, though. No denying that. But some other modern nations have such insurgencies in their recent history, such as Ireland, and that didn't stop them from developing towards prosperity.
Why would you think Iraq would find it easy to stabilize itself post Hussein, such that you'd declare their future void already. Iraq is not yet a failure and is dramatically more stable than it was under Hussein (dictatorships bring hyper instability universally, which is why they have to constantly murder & terrify everybody to try to keep the system from instantly imploding due to the perpetual instability inherent in dictatorship).
Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Kuwait, and most of Eastern Europe (which the US was extremely deep in interfering with for decades in competition with the USSR). You can also add Colombia to that list, it is a successful outcome thus far of US interference.
I like the part where people pretend the vast interference in positive outcomes don't count. The US positively, endlessly interfered in Europe for the past century. That interference has overwhelmingly turned out well.
Why shouldn't Russia or China just do the same and interfere with the leadership of countries they don't like.
Also it is impossible to argue the cost of the war in Iraq was worth the benefit, even if we agree Iraq is in a better place now then it was under Hussein.
But the Iraquis didn’t pay the military monetary cost (arguably they paid a different cost, but it’s very hard to balance that against living under a dictator, and I said that from experience), and I’m sure US’ imperialist shenanigans could recoup the monetary cost. Seeing as US doesn’t have compulsory conscription, that takes away part of the reprehensibility of the human cost of US’ personnel caused by its interventionist policy. Which, to my eyes, leaves the thing as a net positive.
One thing can be said with certainty about countries like Venezuela and Cuba: they are broken and they cause untold pain to their citizens. The moral imperative to fix them is there, even if one can certainly discuss how and maybe quibble a little about the monetary cost.
The government of nations is anarchy and in anarchy the only rule is that “might makes right”. Some seem to have a view that there is a world government and that there are “rules” when in reality there are none.
There is such thing as a post-Vietnam America, and its record is pretty bad.
What an absurd thing to say. The US doesn't only overthrow dictatorships - it supports them too, as it suits its self-interest. Why not include the US interference when it SUPPORTED Hussein and later changed its mind - still think "interference turns out well" after backing a genocidal monster, supporting his invasion of a neighbour, invading twice and related deaths of 400 000 people?
Countries stabilise over time, that's what their people make happen. You ignore Indonesia, Iran, El Salvador, Nicaragua and dozens of disaster of US imperialism but give credit to the US when their populations rebuild them.
The US has done some positive things but they're the convenient accidents you've cherry picked to make your point.
Re. Iraq, interestingly the US invasion has vastly increased Iran's influence in the country because the majority is Shia while Saddam was from a Sunni tribe.
Which is somehow inherently wrong due to what reason exactly?
But yes, the South Korean regime in the 50s (and the RoC one in Taiwan to a lesser extent) was extremely brutal and oppressive and hardly much worse than the one in the north.
Are we counting the financial support that Wall Street and the budding CIA boys at Sullivan & Cromwell gave Hitler to harass the Soviet Union, which ultimately had to take care of the problem they created, in the "turning out well" column here?
Park Chung Hee took a country that could not be a functional democracy, provided leadership and put it onto the path of economic success. Iirc, the reduction in poverty through that period is the fastest in human history (when you consider that China, that is an incredible statement).
I think people (still) assume both that democracy is superior economically for every situation and that people who don't have any food care about being unable to vote...neither of these things is obviously true. Indeed, in the latter case, we now have a good test case of poor countries adopting democracy early and they have generally not been successful as power rotates between various quasi-dictators who give massive handouts to the poor to retain power (without doing anything actually useful).
Grenada is something of a joke in this context - the entire thing came about because the communist government fell apart and started fighting internally, so it's pretty likely the regime would have shortly collapsed with or without the invasion
