The distinction between "citizens" (with avenues of non-violent recourse for "bad governance") and "subjects" (who have no such avenues) is well-known enough. Also, your comment:
is, for example, something that we old folks could have heard and read from (e.g.) Bill Corson re: the impossible position of the South Vietnamese peasant who was beset by the Government of South Vietnam (predatory and "bad") and the Communists ("worse").If people perceive them as the subject of a government, they do not expect State to act in their favor but as a burden at the best and a predator in most of the cases.
In that type of situation, a foreign power (IF it can affect the outcome positively at all) has two bad choices - does it select the "lesser" of two evils; or does it simply walk away ?
The experience of the US in Cold War and post-Cold War "peace enforcement" and associated "nation building" has not been positive. Perhaps, it's time to withdraw from that role ?
Regards
Mike
Bookmarks