Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Skroe]

- We're going to ask NATO to get more involved - LOL! Yeah, I'm sure Europe can't wait to get dragged into another US conflict in the Middle East

Here's the thing... Europe has strong incentive to do so, especially since it probably will translate into "more training missions to to make the Iraqi Army not completely suck." This is the case for two reasons.

(1) Europe would be encouraging Trump in embracing a "peaceful off ramp" and disincentivizing a return to open military hostilities. Basically saying "hey, you asked for our help in good faith to avoid a war? here is us helping". That's a very Europe-thing to do.

(2) Because Europe is perennially skittish about Trump's commitment to NATO, and especially nervous about the prospect of his re-election (which I give about a 60% chance), but comitting NATO to a "Trump initiated venture", which would really just be the old venture slightly bolstered in forces, they get to tell Trump at the next NATO meeting "here's us following your lead and helping America against Iran and ISIS!", which of course, is exactly the kind of shit that tickles our idiot President's fancy. This is guy after all, who mislabels his towers floors to pretend the buildings are taller than they are. It would be hard for Trump to push leaving NATO if Europe is actively helping Trump against something to simple like their existing NATO mission in Iraq, with say, another few dozen troops. Something peacemiel. And sell it to Trump as bolstered. Because he's an imbecile.

Plenty of Europeans will want to tell Impeached President Fathead to take a flying leap, but 1 and 2 suit their interests. It advances European-style conflict resolution and gets NATO in Trump's face in a way that makes him feel like a winner, which will lower the chances he tries to fuck NATO.

[Thekri]

You don't base global politics and war decisions on the death of a random dude unless he was a fucking royal family member or the head of state.

See this is a big difference between a European way of thinking and an American way of thinking. We don't have a royal family, we conceptually believe everyone is equally important, and we will react to protect or avenge any of our citizens. Of course this has always been somewhat farcical, obviously everyone in the US is not truly equally important, but the concept that they are is important to us.

I also urge you not to let people like Skroe or Trump send you into the full Kangodo America hating camp. America is more then those two people, it is a lot more complex then you are painting it. Yeah, it does a lot of bad stuff, but it isn't some sort of evil empire because it isn't an empire, it isn't bound to anyone's will.

The biggest real criticism I would say for America is that we are maddeningly inconsistent, due to the nature of our government. We can completely transform our policies and world outlook every 4 years, which is incredibly destabilizing when people aren't sure if America is going to be honoring its treaties and obligations after January 2021, or January 2025, and so forth. We need to do a lot better at being true to our word.

Anyway, I do find it amusing that for all the trash talking of how war-mongering America and Trump have been in this thread, today it became clear that America is taking exactly the opposite path. We are showing restraint, we didn't return fire, not even on the launch sites, and we are going back to economic and diplomatic channels. The perception of a war-mongering America had so many of you convinced we were on the edge of a World War, but we didn't go that route, we stood down and deescalated. Yes, we killed a guy that we said was planning imminent attacks, we will never see the classified intelligence that led to that decision, so we can't really make an informed decision on what comes next, but we did NOT jump headfirst into war like so many claimed we were doing.

[Stormspark]

Yeah, it looks like the adults have restrained Trump, for now anyway.

[Thekri]

Yeah, it looks like the adults have restrained Trump, for now anyway.

Not sure why you read it that way, looks more like Trump doesn't want a war to me. I have never really understood the labeling of Trump as a warmonger. He is many terrible things, but a warmonger is not one of them. He likes to talk shit, he does not like actual fights, it terrifies him. Most of his biggest foreign policy blunders have been terrible plans to end conflict, not start them.

Trump sees Iran as a rival on a reality TV show, same as North Korea. He wants to talk shit and act tough, but he really doesn't want a fight, and he has backed down every time. Most other presidents, including Obama, would have probably struck Iran after the attack on the Saudi Oil fields. Or after the attack on the USS Mason. Or certainly after last night. Trump really doesn't want to. Ending conflicts is actually one of the things he is sincere about, he wants to go back to trade deals and twitter fights, not missile fights. Of course he is a complete idiot, and he doesn't seem to understand that some people thing missiles are a valid response to his tweets.

[Thekri]

Personally, I think that opinion comes from all the bluster he tweets out. If not for actual capable advisers, I believe he would take the actual war route, even if just because he panics and chooses that option in said panic.

I mean I wouldn't put it past him to start a war on accident, as he nearly did here. But I don't think he is planning on starting a war on purpose. Like most bullies, he is inherently a coward, a war is very frightening to him.

Starting a war on accident is certainly frightening, Trump is a danger to the entire planet every second he remains in office, but that is mostly incompetence on that front, not malice. As far as actually capable advisors, I am not sure how many he has left. Outside of maybe Gen. Milley, I can't think of anyone in contact with him that I actually trust any more. Mattis, Tillerson, and McMaster are all gone. Hell even Sessions and Bolton were competent, although a bit evil. The clown show that is left just that.

[starlord]

Personally, I think that opinion comes from all the bluster he tweets out. If not for actual capable advisers, I believe he would take the actual war route, even if just because he panics and chooses that option in said panic.

yea.. it was a very close call, and now people are going "that was the plan all along! 4d chess!" lol.

[Crispin]

Here's the thing... Europe has strong incentive to do so, especially since it probably will translate into "more training missions to to make the Iraqi Army not completely suck." This is the case for two reasons.

(1) Europe would be encouraging Trump in embracing a "peaceful off ramp" and disincentivizing a return to open military hostilities. Basically saying "hey, you asked for our help in good faith to avoid a war? here is us helping". That's a very Europe-thing to do.

(2) Because Europe is perennially skittish about Trump's commitment to NATO, and especially nervous about the prospect of his re-election (which I give about a 60% chance), but comitting NATO to a "Trump initiated venture", which would really just be the old venture slightly bolstered in forces, they get to tell Trump at the next NATO meeting "here's us following your lead and helping America against Iran and ISIS!", which of course, is exactly the kind of shit that tickles our idiot President's fancy. This is guy after all, who mislabels his towers floors to pretend the buildings are taller than they are. It would be hard for Trump to push leaving NATO if Europe is actively helping Trump against something to simple like their existing NATO mission in Iraq, with say, another few dozen troops. Something peacemiel. And sell it to Trump as bolstered. Because he's an imbecile.

Plenty of Europeans will want to tell Impeached President Fathead to take a flying leap, but 1 and 2 suit their interests. It advances European-style conflict resolution and gets NATO in Trump's face in a way that makes him feel like a winner, which will lower the chances he tries to fuck NATO.

Pretty sure you'll be correct on this for the reasons you listed. NATO will seem usefull to Trump and we'd feel like we have more influence on the conflict.

(These threads need to be merged :-/ )

[Skroe]

See this is a big difference between a European way of thinking and an American way of thinking. We don't have a royal family, we conceptually believe everyone is equally important, and we will react to protect or avenge any of our citizens. Of course this has always been somewhat farcical, obviously everyone in the US is not truly equally important, but the concept that they are is important to us.

I also urge you not to let people like Skroe or Trump send you into the full Kangodo America hating camp. America is more then those two people, it is a lot more complex then you are painting it. Yeah, it does a lot of bad stuff, but it isn't some sort of evil empire because it isn't an empire, it isn't bound to anyone's will.

The biggest real criticism I would say for America is that we are maddeningly inconsistent, due to the nature of our government. We can completely transform our policies and world outlook every 4 years, which is incredibly destabilizing when people aren't sure if America is going to be honoring its treaties and obligations after January 2021, or January 2025, and so forth. We need to do a lot better at being true to our word.

Anyway, I do find it amusing that for all the trash talking of how war-mongering America and Trump have been in this thread, today it became clear that America is taking exactly the opposite path. We are showing restraint, we didn't return fire, not even on the launch sites, and we are going back to economic and diplomatic channels. The perception of a war-mongering America had so many of you convinced we were on the edge of a World War, but we didn't go that route, we stood down and deescalated. Yes, we killed a guy that we said was planning imminent attacks, we will never see the classified intelligence that led to that decision, so we can't really make an informed decision on what comes next, but we did NOT jump headfirst into war like so many claimed we were doing.

There is a far larger conversation that you may have missed.

Here is how it went.

Me: War against Iran is the stupidest thing the US can do. But killing Suleimani is an opportunity to bolster conventional deterrence if it part of a wider strategy. The US has seen deterrence undermined over the last 20 years, and for that we've been attacked in many new ways that our adversaries wouldnt have done previously. It was a bold move and Europeans are wrong to stand against it as they are. And Trump opponents are off base making this too much about Trump

Others: Deterrence is a farce and auto fails for some reasons. US is also a blodo soaked imperialist cowboy nation that never listens to Europe and stomps over the world without thinking of consequences.

Me: Oh this shit again. Literally a replay of the old Iraq War-era whines from

Others: We're striking back at the US by doing X Y and Z

Me: heard that before again too. You aren't. By the way, conventional deterrence is a thing and it's good Suleimani is dead.



My problem with this discussion and the response in the western world and among some americans has been largely psychologcial in nature. That's fare more important to me than killing Solimani. How are we possibly supposed to deter Russia and China this century, when the one time we give Iran a black eye they sorely had coming, everybody freaks out, it's World War III and the Selective Service Website crashes.

This is my problem, and I feel the past 5 days have largely validate it: I feel a healthy prudence and respect for risks has been replaced by a deeply pathological fantastists fear of consequence. What we have seen is people willingly and freely creating disaster scenarios so unlikely they defy belief. And they use these incredibly unlikely scenarios to rationalize certain positions and behaviors. People don't have to agree with what the US did, and Individual-1 certainly had no strategy. But if the US slapping Iran hard, once, leads to fears of World War III and Iranian refugees headed into Europe like the Halo Flood, it means we can't rationally analyze and discus crucial current events, because fear will have taken over. And among elected figures, that translates to policies.

That's by concern. Every cold is a pandemic, every airstrike a massive war and ever bad day an epochal cataclysm. It's been a descent from rationality across the board.

The "America fuck yeah" stuff, let's be clear about something else regarding that. Europeans haven't expressed an original thought when they object to American foreign policy in the last 20 years. I like Slant. But he is also pulling the same special moves people pulled back in 2003. It's like fighting Ryu in Street Fighter III versus Street Fighter V. It is the same slams. The same criticisms. The same twisted facts. And the same "we'll show you when the world runs on Euros" or some variation of that crap.

It is a juvenile line of argument that does not deserve respect and only deserves an equally juvenile response. Seriously. It's never been right and it's never changed in 20 years. And I bet 20 years from now, it'll be the exact same shit. I kept saying repeatedly "Slant I think better of you than this" because the "we'll show you, you unthinking cowboys" line of argument is, I think, beneath him and hopefully most people here.

That is how the conversation proceeded. I'm generally pretty satisfied with how the situation seems to be at the President, barring Iran pulling something else of course. I am concerned that launching 15 missiles at US forces unanswered though normalizes a terrible danger if that is done again in the future, but that could be a premature concern. I'm also pleased General Petraeus echoed what I said about deterrence. It's quite clear a lot of people here, maybe less knowledgeable of history, don't take that concept seriously enough.

[starlord]

I'm also pleased General Petraeus echoed what I said about deterrence. It's quite clear a lot of people here, maybe less knowledgeable of history, don't take that concept seriously enough.

yes its very significant that one of the architects of the US's greatest failures agrees with you.

[Skroe]

yes its very significant that one of the architects of the US's greatest failures agrees with you.

Petraeus was no an architect of the Iraq War. You said that before. I honestly don't think you know what his role was in 2002/2003 (he was commander of the 101st Airborne).

Petraeus was in fact, put out to pasture... to toil in obscurity by those architects. He introduced counterinsurgency techniques in his assignment in Mosul and created the safest region in the country at the time. As his reward those war architects tried to end his career by sidelining him stateside. When the war went to real shit in 2005/2006/2007, he was brought in by George W Bush to initiate the surge and start a large scale counterinsurgency campaign that those war architects resisted.

Why? Because those War architects were cold warriors. They thought in terms of heavy armor and divisions and maneuver warfare. They were out of their depth in Iraq once the occupation occurred. Petraeus found that unsuitable for the actual war. So he basically redesigned the entire War effort from scratch.

The surge worked and Petraeus' successor, Ordierno continued his success. The surge cleared the way for US Troops to leave Iraq in 2010. And that was the end of David Petraeus' involvement in Iraq as a General.

So no. He wasn't an architect. He was the guy brought in to clean up the mess the actual architects made. Names you don't remember like Ricardo Sanchez and Paul Bremmer and George Casey and Tommy Franks. And Donald Rumsfeld too, lets not forget.

Hold people accountable for what they actually are, not what you would like them to be.

[Crispin]

Me: War against Iran is the stupidest thing the US can do. But killing Suleimani is an opportunity to bolster conventional deterrence if it part of a wider strategy. The US has seen deterrence undermined over the last 20 years, and for that we've been attacked in many new ways that our adversaries wouldnt have done previously. It was a bold move and Europeans are wrong to stand against it as they are. And Trump opponents are off base making this too much about Trump

Others: Deterrence is a farce and auto fails for some reasons. US is also a blodo soaked imperialist cowboy nation that never listens to Europe and stomps over the world without thinking of consequences.

Me: Oh this shit again. Literally a replay of the old Iraq War-era whines from

Others: We're striking back at the US by doing X Y and Z

Me: heard that before again too. You aren't. By the way, conventional deterrence is a thing and it's good Suleimani is dead.

Without turning this into a shit slinging contest, this is how it appeared from my perspective, not going to argue for others.


You: this is great, we need to pay back 10x as hard as we're hit because the US runs this planet, and it's our right to bomb whoever resisting.

Me: It's pretty fucking harsh to take out #2 in Iran for a destroyed reception at an embassy

You: No we need to bomb them

Me: perhaps diplomacy is prefered

You: We'll bomb them to diplomacy

Me: ....


And there's no need to refere to history as a green card for deterrence, it's never been a guaranteed way of avoiding a war.

[jonnysensible]

The deterrence spiel is absolute toilet. Its very shallow.

Lets spell it out.

Soleimanis proxies likely killed over 600 american servicemen in Iraq (who if you want to get pedantic shouldnt have been there in the first place). Bin Laden, Baghdadi, the Haqqani network met the same fate as Soleimani previously for similar reasons. This decision was made as part of a broader US policy to change Iranian activities that threaten US interests and the forces that work to achieve those interests. This is why killing him was a fundemental mistake. The US wants Iran to stop funding Shia proxies, to stop going after advanced ballistic missiles and above all to stop its nuclear ambitions. The US actions do nothing but strengthen domestic political elements in Iran who want to expand those goals. It emboldens them. The United States actions to change Iranian activity will undoubtedly now have the opposite effect.


Soleimani was likely the 2nd most powerful man in Iran with wide popular support. Lets try a scenario :

Imagine a US general like old mad dog who is widely liked domestically. (perhaps formerly now trumps trashed him) turns up to visit troops in Iraq and Iran plants an IED and nukes him out of existance. Would American policy-makers or the American population opt to change its behavior in the region or would America double down?

Americas goals in Iraq are : fighting ISIS, bulwark against Iran, hegomonic stability (stability in hydrocarbon trade too).
However Iraq widely relies on Iran for its own internal political stability and security. If American troops get booted who will step in?

For the past 3 years Trumps hardon to decimate anything Obama did has led to maximum pressure being the tactic applied to Iran. Renouncing the JCPOA and re-imposing sanctions is a simple plan : change your ways or deal with the pain. A clearer dimesion to this would be that the US has openly supported regime change as a wider goal. Bolton although out now was pretty open about it.

It looks like the sanctions and actions will lead to a change in government in Iran. A more hardline one which is not in the stated US interests. Rouhani was elected president promising to improve the lives of Iranians by making a deal with the rest of the world concerning its nuclear ambitions. He was then re-elected appealing to voters to trust that sanctions relief under the nuclear deal. His more hardline opponents warned against trusting the United States. They said the nuclear deal would weaken Iran and the USA couldnt be trusted to keep up its obligations. Who was right?

Parlimentry elections are in February, and the Presidential election is next year if you look at the polling Rouhani is not doing well. After 2021 any favourable change to Iranian policy will be completely out of reach. How does this benefit the US?

It may feel like justice to some, or value for the sake of it but foreign policy is meant to achieve optimal results for the country and this choice will literally go against every US goal in Iraq. Its once again tactic without strategy something the US has become all too comfortable with.


Hopefully this was vaguely coherent typing on a phone sucks ill be fucked if im editing it.

[starlord]

Petraeus was no an architect of the Iraq War. You said that before. I honestly don't think you know what his role was in 2002/2003 (he was commander of the 101st Airborne).

Petraeus was in fact, put out to pasture... to toil in obscurity by those architects. He introduced counterinsurgency techniques in his assignment in Mosul and created the safest region in the country at the time. As his reward those war architects tried to end his career by sidelining him stateside. When the war went to real shit in 2005/2006/2007, he was brought in by George W Bush to initiate the surge and start a large scale counterinsurgency campaign that those war architects resisted.

Why? Because those War architects were cold warriors. They thought in terms of heavy armor and divisions and maneuver warfare. They were out of their depth in Iraq once the occupation occurred. Petraeus found that unsuitable for the actual war. So he basically redesigned the entire War effort from scratch.

The surge worked and Petraeus' successor, Ordierno continued his success. The surge cleared the way for US Troops to leave Iraq in 2010. And that was the end of David Petraeus' involvement in Iraq as a General.

So no. He wasn't an architect. He was the guy brought in to clean up the mess the actual architects made. Names you don't remember like Ricardo Sanchez and Paul Bremmer and George Casey and Tommy Franks. And Donald Rumsfeld too, lets not forget.

Hold people accountable for what they actually are, not what you would like them to be.

fair enough. but as you say yourself, he played a huge role in it. and he's echoing what other iraq war hawks are jumping in to say again.
so, unless you think iraq is a great success i would think twice about doing the same.

meanwhile we are still waiting to see the complete fallout of all this. we went from iran attacking us by proxies to iran hitting us with missles (and then us backing down after they did). their other proxies have announced plans for more escalation.

that completely undermines notions of deterrence.

[Xjev]

Man the 737 going down at this time is extremely suspicious

[Slant]

See this is a big difference between a European way of thinking and an American way of thinking. We don't have a royal family, we conceptually believe everyone is equally important, and we will react to protect or avenge any of our citizens. Of course this has always been somewhat farcical, obviously everyone in the US is not truly equally important, but the concept that they are is important to us.

Bullshit. Source: Native Americans, Blacks, Latinos...

Your royalty is the President. Just because you don't call him a king doesn't mean you treat him like royalty. Even a dipshit like Trump gets more adulation than the actual, living British Queen.

The only thing that makes you equal in the US is fucking money and power. If you have neither, you're the footpad on which the actually equal stand. Make no mistake, I'm not as gullible as your average white middle class suburban US family that rests on their fake charity to ease their conscience.

- - - Updated - - -

Without turning this into a shit slinging contest, this is how it appeared from my perspective, not going to argument for others.


You: this is great, we need to pay back 10x as hard as we're hit because the US runs this planet, and it's our right to bomb whoever resisting.

Me: It's pretty fucking harsh to take out #2 in Iran for a destroyed reception at an embassy

You: No we need to bomb them

Me: perhaps diplomacy is prefered

You: We'll bomb them to diplomacy

Me: ....


And there's no need to refere to history as a green card for deterrence, it's never been a guaranteed way of avoiding a war.

I'll just leave this here. Wesley Clark himself said this...

[starlord]

i'll go into more detail about why the deterrence approach is doomed to fail in the ME (because the proven track record of failure isn't enough apparently).

so, for deterrence to work both parties have to be on about the same page for what even constituted deterrence.

the US is going "hm what would deter us?" and then doing that, then act all surprised when it doesn't work.
this same mistake was made in WW2 when dealing with japan.
the ME has a completely different approach to warfare and conflict than we do. forbidden topics aside, they are not on the same page as us.

they are used to dealing with "irrational actors", so when someone like the US comes along to threaten violence its a big "so, what?". its already the "cost of doing business" there to lose people.
its like your dad threatening to spank you when you've already gotten used to it. just won't get caught next time.

what they *are* big on is honor, reputation, etc in the sense of "i'm a bad guy and people aren't going to mess with me!". when we killed their #2 guy, that didn't frighten, cow, or deter them.
it was throwing the gauntlet down.

the US also needs to be clear about what it wants. both parties cannot come to agreement if one is changing their mind all the time. when we flail around and escalate violence they have no problem doing the same.
and we just proved that we aren't willing to *really* take that approach as far as it would require to be effective.

[Crispin]

Further reference on the failings of deterrence

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/art...-do/index.html

.

Much to Argentina’s surprise, the British Navy sailed to the South Atlantic and re-conquered the islands[....]Should one not have known that remaining passive would have spelled the end for any British government? The answer: yes, in normal times Argentina may well have pondered such scenarios. However, in a crisis humans tend to think along a different kind of logic. Indeed, many studies about human behaviour demonstrate that people who fear to lose something valuable are ready to take greater risks than those who hope to make a gain. In the context of the Falklands War, this means that for the Junta, which was under siege politically, occupying the “Malvinas” was not about a gain, but rather about avoiding losing power. This made them take risks they otherwise would not have dared to take. Rationality – a precondition for a stable deterrence system – had evaporated.

[Orange Joe]

That's just... wrong.

Trump is a piece of human filth and the worst American alive, but Iran publicly hangs people who commit sodomy and adultery by using a mobile crane. People are stoned to death.

Didn't Trump just pardon a few soldiers that committed some pretty nasty acts themselves? Lets not pretend America is a bastion of morality here. We just don't get caught as much as Iran.

[Slant]

i'll go into more detail about why the deterrence approach is doomed to fail in the ME (because the proven track record of failure isn't enough apparently).

so, for deterrence to work both parties have to be on about the same page for what even constituted deterrence.

the US is going "hm what would deter us?" and then doing that, then act all surprised when it doesn't work.
this same mistake was made in WW2 when dealing with japan.
the ME has a completely different approach to warfare and conflict than we do. forbidden topics aside, they are not on the same page as us.

they are used to dealing with "irrational actors", so when someone like the US comes along to threaten violence its a big "so, what?". its already the "cost of doing business" there to lose people.
its like your dad threatening to spank you when you've already gotten used to it. just won't get caught next time.

what they *are* big on is honor, reputation, etc in the sense of "i'm a bad guy and people aren't going to mess with me!". when we killed their #2 guy, that didn't frighten, cow, or deter them.
it was throwing the gauntlet down.

the US also needs to be clear about what it wants. both parties cannot come to agreement if one is changing their mind all the time. when we flail around and escalate violence they have no problem doing the same.
and we just proved that we aren't willing to *really* take that approach as far as it would require to be effective.

Good post. And I'd like to add to the last paragraph that this is why the US policy currently fails. The US has no goal. In Vietnam they tried to do the body count, really did not work out the way they planned. In Afghanistan they wanted to get Osama... well they got him, after the war was over and they spend years hanging out in a country without any idea what to do with it. Same in Iraq. And the same will happen in Iran. The US has no clear goal. No reason to do stuff.

Now... What do Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran have in common? All of them have one goal. One clear goal and the best one at that: Survive. Oh, you can subjugate people for a while, but in the end they will always oppose you. That Americans haven't caught on the fact that people will always fight for their freedom is amusingly ironic. And all Iran has to do is defend itself. Will they succeed? Nah, not a chance. But the US will eventually stop the war not because they "won" it, but because they are tired of suppressing a nation violently that continues to attack them despite being "conquered". That continues to be a pain in the butt. That continues to bleed American blood. Until the home front is lost. Which is ALWAYS what happens to the US. Because there is no clear goal, no clear conviction.. just adrenaline pumped gun love. And that's why this is doomed to fail also.

[Endus]

That Americans haven't caught on the fact that people will always fight for their freedom is amusingly ironic. And all Iran has to do is defend itself. Will they succeed? Nah, not a chance. But the US will eventually stop the war not because they "won" it, but because they are tired of suppressing a nation violently that continues to attack them despite being "conquered". That continues to be a pain in the butt. That continues to bleed American blood. Until the home front is lost. Which is ALWAYS what happens to the US. Because there is no clear goal, no clear conviction.. just adrenaline pumped gun love. And that's why this is doomed to fail also.

And I want to emphasize that first sentence, there, again.

That's what the resistance to American imperialism is; a fight for freedom. When you move into a nation like Iraq and say "We want you to be free and democratic", and then you try and control that democratic system to produce a government you are happy with, that's not freedom. You do not want that country to be "free". You want them to be a subjugated client state. That's not a push for freedom, that's a push to expand imperialist control.

Freedom isn't going to always work out how the USA wants it to. And if the USA can't accept that, it needs to stop using the term as an identifier for American values.

If you topple a country's dictatorship, and the people near-unanimously say "FUCK OFF, USA" and "elect" a new dictator, worse than the last, you're not trying to free them. You're trying to oppress them. And failing, I'll add.

You can't force democracy on a country. The people need to rise up and take democratic control, themselves. The people of that nation must be the directing force for that push. If they aren't, any attempt to install a democracy upon them is A> oppressive and dictatorial by nature, in direct contradiction to democratic principles, and B> doomed to fail. You can support a people in making that push, but they have to have the societal impetus to want it, first.