Posted by Dayuhan

Taking it one step further... what's the best policy in engaging an allied military force that wants and needs help, but that has a record of human rights abuse. Do you refuse to have anything to do with them, or work with them in an effort to improve things?

Obviously that depends on our assessment of the problem and the likelihood of it improving, and on political evaluations of just how important the alliance in question is. The questions remain, though: how bad do they have to be before we refuse to have anything to do with them? Is a refusal to engage going to make any difference? Is it possible for intervention to produce lasting changes?

Not that there's a universal answer, but it's a question worth considering, as in practice many of the governments and militaries we work in FID roles with have and will continue to have less than spotless records.
The questions I ask myself are:

. what are the benefits of engaging in FID within those countries?

. what are the risks of engaging in FID within those countries?

And ultimately:

. to what extend are the U.S. ready to take the risk of loosing their legitimacy at the international level (which, in my view, already has eroded to an extend that was unimaginable a few years ago)?