Bundy policy, good then, or bad now?

McGeorge Bundy as chief of the "wise men" in the 1960s promoted what had been called a military industrial complex, economic prosperity through a strategic air and arms industry second to none in the world. Republicans love to say that American arms expenditure broke the Soviet Union during the 1980s, but I suspect the forty year effort of Mikhail Gorbachev to achieve Perestroika had a little more to do with the final downfall of that empire.

During the reign of Bundy as NSC chief the US escalated the Vietnam conflict, which seemed a shame in light of the WW-ii letters from Ho Chi Minh pleading for help to support democracy in Vietnam, a shame that the US joined French interests to install a favorable leader which left Ho with little option except to turn to the communist despite the fact that China had imprisoned him for two years.

And then there is this on-going Bechtel mine operated by Freeport with an Indonesian mining license for a colony on the Australian island of Papua (obviously that is continental Australia and not the commonwealth that occupies the other 90% of that continent).
It seems odd that by April 1961 the NSC was an expert on West New Guinea as reported in this DoS summary.

Was Bundy perhaps influence by Robert Lovett who as a Freeport director would have known about the vast gold & copper wealth that Freeport wanted to mine?

On reflection were the Bundy policies good for America or were they only good for his friends' corporations?
Is the money which Freeport makes in West Papua worth more than the damage cause by radical groups being able to point to West Papua for fifty years as an example of American exploitation and colonial abuse? The US media may be shy about the colony, but South East Asia and the Arab nations are well aware of the world's largest gold & copper mine.