U.S. foreign policy has long tolerated brutal friendly dictators

Evidence

More fundamentally, I never would have supported Saddam Hussein in the first place. He was, of course, a darling of the United States for many years, using not just chemical weapons but American-made munitions against his own people. Franklin D. Roosevelt is reported as having referred to Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza as “a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.” It is precisely this approach that for so long has characterized (and continues to characterize) U.S. foreign policy and that invites all kinds of present and future disasters. Instead, the United States ought to pursue policies that fulfill the legitimate aspirations of peoples around the world, while protecting essential human rights and preserving the use of force only for when it is absolutely necessary for self-defense. — Moustafa Bayoumi, How Does It Feel to Be a Problem? Being…, 1208

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the general theme of realpolitik tolerating friendly autocrats; the ‘our son-of-a-bitch’ framing echoes a longtime trope in foreign-affairs commentary. — connects to: US policy in the MENA region consistently favored its geopolitical interests over democratic outcomes — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 367; US policy repeatedly wrecked democratic movements and installed dictators in MENA
• SEED: The lasting tension between ‘fulfill legitimate aspirations’ idealism and contingent realpolitik could anchor an essay on when supporting friendly tyrants actually buys security.