Modernization/Development Theory, CORDS, and FM 3-24?

[Sparapet]

We left Afghanistan alone the first time and ended up with 2800 dead American's in New York. We could leave Iran alone ... not sure that would work out for us either.
The reality is that we meddle in the affairs of other countries all the time. That is why we have the Instruments of National Power (DIME). At least since 1945 and well into the foreseeable future we try to mold the actions of other countries to meet our desires.

I would say there is nothing wrong with that. My reference to the Prime Directive was less to pursuit of national interests than to non-interference in the manners of others. That is to say, there is nothing wrong with enforcing our interests and demanding acceptance of our goals. The wrong-headedness comes in when we decide that we are so fed up with our opponents that we will try to change them. By way of analogy - imprisoning a murderer vs. rehabilitating him and releasing him back in the hope he is reformed and useful. We can't seem to help ourselves from slipping from enforcement to rehabilitation. But just as with murderers, no one seems to know exactly how rehabilitation works or how long it takes.

If it is our policy to promote democracy (which it was the last time I looked)... Democracy will not always yield a liberal political system which is really what the policymakers are talking about when they refer to a democracy.

This is where there is a real ideological divide between us all. Those that see export of democracy as imperative, those that see export of liberal political systems as imperative, and those that seek neither. The true tension of the discussion is with which of these ideologies rests the burden of proof. Do the exporters have to prove to the non-intereference crowd that it should be done? Or do the non-intereference crowd prove to the exporters that it shouldn't? and so on. Note that I call all three ideologies.
Since we haven't been in the business of annexing territory in about 65 years or so, and we don't like to extend the privilige of being an American to just anyone, but at the same time we are obsessed with everyone seeing us as primus inter pares as some sort of ideal, we have ourselves a bit of conundrum. If we are to be among equals, all others must be made in our image. Yet if we do not convert them through annexation by fusing their socio-economic systems to our own, we must convert them through ideology. So we go forth, democratizing.

I would argue that what Russia, China, and Japan did were all success of a kind. Russia when from a weak empire to one of the world's superpowers; China is an economic powerhouse; and Japan went from an island nation to controlling most of the Pacific. This kind of thing happens. The question is why did it work for them?

The thing to remember with all three cases is the huge human toll. There is more than an ounce of discomfort with the proposition that these countries did much of anything worth emulating. Russia killed between 30 and 50 million people between 1905 and 1953 (not counting the 25-30 million from WWII). In that time the country went from looking like it was stuck in 1600’s to mid-20th century. That upheaval is titanic. China lost ungodly millions, again, apart from the benevolent Japanese occupation. And the Japanese, after upending their entire society, wound up killing and losing millions in endless wars of expansion as they sought to feed the economic machines they were modernizing with.
I do think that a lot of these issues result more from the intellectual challenge of reflection, compared with the intellectual ease of theorizing to personal satisfaction. Every human in history is subject to this.

socioeconomic development led to a change in values that resulted in a greater likelihood of democratization. It also helped disproved the idea that democratic institutions created values that supported liberal democratic institutions.

When they say “socioeconomic” to what extent to they distinguish it from cultural change. It seems that is the logical implication of this finding.