Saddam Hussein | The man they called “The Butcher of Baghdad,” shortly after U.S. soldiers pulled him from his so-called spider hole in Iraq. | Photo: Archives | Related: Saddam Hussein, Iraq, terror

If foreign policy were a horse race, the United States government would lose its shirt at the track.

A few weeks back, I discussed how the US often justifies repressive policies overseas on the ground we're doing the right thing: Fighting Communism, fighting Islamofascism. The noble rationalization.

The flip side of this is the pragmatic rationalization: Just like every other country, we protect our own interests. And if our interests conflict with some other nation's naturally we're going to look out for number one. For example, this recent NYT column explains that given Egyptian elections will probably give political dominance to Islamic extremists, "American interests" require we intervene and make sure the military retains enough control of the government that "no side is left empty-handed."

Columnist Jon Alterman doesn't explain exactly what he has in mind. Does he want to give the Egyptians more freedom than they enjoyed under the Mubarak regime we supported for years? Or the kind of conditional arrangement where the public votes, and the military removes candidates we don't approve of? Installing client governments that suit our interest has been standard US policy for my entire lifetime, but I still find Alterman's position repugnant. The idea that Americans have inalienable rights while other nations have only the rights we find useful to grant them has never sat well with me. And "We have a right to protect our interests" should never be taken to mean "We have a right to screw other nations over."

But since Alterman, like others, frames intervention in the terms of a practical discussion of American interests, let's look at the practical problem: Tampering on other nations' affairs often isn't practical and in the long run doesn't advance our interests.

Take Iraq. We supported Saddam Hussein for decades then wound up fighting a war against him when he invaded Kuwait. A decade later, we went into Iraq again and w

We supported Saddam Hussein for decades then wound up fighting a war against him

ound up wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives to remove a tyrant we supported and sort out a geopolitical mess we created.

How about Panama? We had Manuel Noriega on our payroll for two decades, but when we decided his drug dealing was too embarrassing and he refused to leave office, we went to war to remove him from power.

Afghanistan? We backed the mujaheddin when they fought occupying Soviet forces back in the 1980s. They went on to become the Taliban and extend a helping hand to Osama bin Laden.

Pakistan? According to the book "Nuclear Jihadi," the Reagan administration knew about Pakistan's nuclear program but covered it up to avoid imposing sanctions on an ally. That may still come back to bite us.

American interests aren't a practical reason for overthrowing democratic governments or installing tyrants, because we can't be sure where our long-term interests really lie. What pragmatists really advocate is minimizing short-term inconvenience by creating an authoritarian ally we can count on to bottle up anti-American activity and makes sure the trains run on time. If it blows up in our faces 10 years later, so what? We finance a coup or some death squads, install a new dictator and kick the problem down the road another decade.

In the long run, this isn't just, it isn't a sustainable policy and it doesn't serve American interest. But who in DC worries that much about the long run?