Think they supported him when Vietnam invaded, but any support during the civil war would have been dwarfed by the support given to the Khmer Republic. You could say that they opened the door for Pol Pot by weakening Vietnamese factions, but that isn’t really providing support in my opinion.
The reason that Pol Pot is a decent example is because he got a fair amount of support simply for being anti-US (from for example) . The US covertly supporting an anti-US faction to keep their bigger enemies (Vietnam) from becoming more influential doesn’t mean that they were perceived as an ally of the USA (once again, prior to Vietnam invading).
I'm sure there was some legitimately horrible "regime" somewhere along the line that happened to line up against US interests by accident but I can't think of any. Most of the legitimately awful terrorist groups the US has been against in my life were funded by the CIA, and the US only went after them as an excuse to loot resources, control territory in places we have no right to be in, or to harm a geopolitical enemy with no relation to the terrorist group we were supposedly fighting.
If you are reflexively pro US enemies 100% of the time, you will be on the right side of history 90% of the time.
deleted by creator
Pol Pot is an alright example. If we go into African “post-colonial” history we also have some wild alliances.
I’d say it is a fair bit more than 90% hit rate though.
deleted by creator
Think they supported him when Vietnam invaded, but any support during the civil war would have been dwarfed by the support given to the Khmer Republic. You could say that they opened the door for Pol Pot by weakening Vietnamese factions, but that isn’t really providing support in my opinion.
The reason that Pol Pot is a decent example is because he got a fair amount of support simply for being anti-US (from
for example) . The US covertly supporting an anti-US faction to keep their bigger enemies (Vietnam) from becoming more influential doesn’t mean that they were perceived as an ally of the USA (once again, prior to Vietnam invading).
The next season of blowback is covering this topic, right?
I think it was more a reverse, they supported him eventually. Once his place as a disruptor for Vietnam was clear
edit: and now this question has me wanting to do a deep dive cause there are for sure other exceptions.
You would need to go as far as the confederates.
deleted by creator
Yeah, it's more of a technicality of one letter since one was USA and second CSA.
I'm sure there was some legitimately horrible "regime" somewhere along the line that happened to line up against US interests by accident but I can't think of any. Most of the legitimately awful terrorist groups the US has been against in my life were funded by the CIA, and the US only went after them as an excuse to loot resources, control territory in places we have no right to be in, or to harm a geopolitical enemy with no relation to the terrorist group we were supposedly fighting.