You probably need to define 'good intentions' here. Intentions that are to the benefit of the U.S. are usually what are defined as good intentions - even when they may well be contrary to the good of the people in whose country the interference is happening.

The U.S. is no different in that. Most countries who have covert ops in other places do it for their own good, and the good of the other country is often of no import to those ops.

>I agree completely. With all of the failures the U.S. has incurred by interferring in the political process of other countries (albeit with good intentions), the public only focuses on those situations and doesn't realize that the still classified covert operations which were highly successful over the years are many. Cannot declassify and publicize the successful ones or else it may jeopardize the supposed 'validity' of the current administrations in those countries.
>
>
>
>>> when I have friends somewhere specific doing something specific, it is difficult to read the absolute statements I see sometimes.
>>>
>>
>>Columbia is more than the Gem of the Ocean <s>
>>
>>I think people confuse "covert" with "evil". As a card-carrying member of the "Shoot the officers" cadre I have always believed the world is better served by intelligent covert operations than carpet-bombing or shipping arms to rice farmers so they can die for the commissars.
>>
>>I know the proposed alternative is complete non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. That would be interesting, historically unique, and morally bankrupt.
>>
>>Covert action in 1954 in SE Asia could, I believe, have lead to an outcome much more acceptable to the Vietnamese and American people and the process would have had much less impact on the lives of the majority of people - who have no interest in political issues but are just trying to get on with their lives. "Heaven is high, and the Emperor is far away"