In today's age it is hard not to be critical of the United State's foreign policies now and in the past. Being raised during a period where the atmosphere was mostly war-free can create a biased state of mind in regards to aspects such as war, colonialism, etc. However just as in some professions, political analysists must find a way to disconnect their innate knowledge of wrong and right in order to conceptualize the bigger picture of wrong and right. Meaning sometimes it is imperative to sacrifice life, liberty and the very pursuit of happiness by a small number of people in order to ensure these same rights for a larger amount of people. Which is the reason why war is legal and often thought to be necessary. This is the very notion that the United States used to justify their actions during the French war. the criticism placed on the united states at this point was how and why would an anti-colonial, democratic nation such as the U.S. support imperialism by the French. Aside from the need for France to be a strong ally, Communists were the enemy. According to the U.S. they didn't just want to keep their political views to themselves, they wanted take impose them on the rest of the world. This needed to be prevented. Ngo Dinh Diem's appointment was in Washington's favor Niel Sheehan author of "A Bright Shining Lie" claims. He goes on to state:
"Washington wanted native regimes that would act as surrogates for American power. The goal was to achieve the sway over allies and dependencies which every imperial nation needs to work its will in world affairs without the structure of old-fashioned colonialism."
Ngo Dinh Diem challenged Ho Chi Minh's ideals. He stated that communism was evil and accused Ho of destroying the Vietnamese traditions. like Ramon Magsaysay, Filipino paragon of an anti-communist and progressive Asian leader, Diem was helping the Vietnamese people understand this greater good theory. Thus imperialism had to seem like a good thing if it was to be supported by people under imperialistic rule. "Enlightened self-interest" was the reasoning behind U.S.S support for imperialism. The U.S. had to give the impression,and also believed, that they were helping these nations by modernizing them and at the same time indirectly fighting communism.
The communists however had another perspective. They felt the U.S. imperial system was "a more insidious form of colonialism than the old European variety. They termed it "neocolonialism"".
So which term best suits the U.S.? The answer would just be a matter of perception and opinion based on one's political ideals. Another question that remains is did American support of imperialism benefit the greater good of the world the way it claimed to? How can it when so many lives were lost in preventing something that could have possibly never happened.