Let them make their own histories with their own hands

There was a newspaper opinion piece some time ago ("A republic under siege from the top," The New York Times, October 19-20, 2019 ) about the core values of the U.S. being imperiled not by outside forces but from within, i.e., by none other than the president of the country.

The writer of the opinion, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, says that a lot of members of that nation's military and intelligence communities are dissatisfied, upset, or otherwise opposed to the way President Trump is handling American domestic and foreign policies.  They say Trump is harming the principles and values for which countless American soliders fought wars in the past and are fighting wars now abroad: that America embodies freedom and equality, that America has been the nation that other countries looked to for help in their own fights against tyranny and oppression, and that America has generously fought wars on their behalf to help them gain liberty, freedom, and democracy.  But now those values that make the U.S. great are being corroded by the whimsical decisions made by the commander in chief, who likes to chat with and stand alongside despots and tyrants, but who don't believe in the political and military institutions of his own nation as well as its media.

The above opinion is well understandable, and sounds just and righteous: America being a nation of immigrants, a champion of the good and the right that has evolved since its founding a few hundred years ago to lead the world and spread the gospel of democracy, peace and prosperity.  It all sounds nice.

But hasn't it also been the cause of some of the conflicts and wars that plague the world now, particularly in the Middle East?  Wasn't it that kind of interventionism that made Iraq disintegrate into chaos, creating a political and power vacuum in that area and inviting anyone with ambitions to try to fill that vacuum, giving rise to the ISIS and other extremist groups?  Saddam may have been a despot who oppresessed and killed a huge number of people, but at least he was leading the country in a certain direction and successful in maintaining a modicum of coherency and a sort of stability there, wasn't he?

Trump seems to be saying: Let other nations fight their own wars among themselves, and let's see what happens; if they come up with a great leader, that would be nice.  If it turns out to be a tyrant, that would also be fine as long as he or she is capable of stabilizing their own land, one way or another.  If the results are nothing but chaos, that's none of our own business, we just won't do "business" with them, that's all.

Part of me likes the idea.  It seems to me that that's exactly how most of the nations of the world today that are enjoying certain degrees of freedom and prosperity have gone through during their nation-building periods: civil wars, wars between clans, lords, or generals trying to enlarge their spheres of influence and resources.  If we could go back in time and see how our own countries have come to what they are today, we would see horrific and atrocious scene after scene where peoples deemed enemies are murdered mercilessly just because of their living locations, religion, language, how they look, and so on.  The soldiers and their generals or leaders would have surely been called mass murderers and denounced, and their actions something that must be stopped and worthy of outside military intervention to "stabilize" the area.  But such righteous and humane actions by the outsiders, I believe, could never be sufficient to bring lasting peace and prosperity in the region because the external "help" would always be half-hearted and artificial, something brought upon the people living there and not something the locals would have earned through the pain of nation-building process.  

If I was an American, I may well be still supporting Trump.