Strictly speaking, a fallacy is a specious argument, so unless you have at a BARE minimum, one stated premise, one unstated premise, and a conclusion, you don't have enough to call something a fallacy. As presented, you simply have a claim. Let's look at two examples:
Claim What works for economically and technically high-tech countries will work for economically and technically low-tech countries.
Premise 1. What works for economically and technically high-tech countries will work for economically and technically low-tech countries.
Premise 2. The US is economically and technically high-tech and Afghanistan is an economically and technically low-tech country.
Conclusion Therefore, the economies and technologies of Afghanistan can and should emulate those of the US.
The first is a dubious claim, and the second is fallacious argument. This is an important distinction, because it raises a distinction about the truth and falsity of claims and specious inference. Specious inference is often easy to show, where as the truth and falsity of claims is a much more complex endeavor. There is a rough distinction between validity and soundness/strength and cogency which acknowledges the fundamental difference between evaluating claims versus argument.
Let's address which fallacy might be at play. I suggest three possibilities might be at play in such arguments roughly styled on Example 2:
- False equivalence
- Hasty generalization
- Appeal to authority or popularity
If one presupposes in the argument being forth that since the US and Afghanistan are both countries, one should apply the same logic to them, then one is mucking about with a presumption of false equivalence. While it is true both are countries, a quick look at the CIA World Factbook will demonstrate that they differ in radical ways. Therefore, the opposing position in the debate should have their eyes peeled for any claims, implicit or explicit that essentially assert "The US and Afghanistan are much alike". That sort of foundational presumption in a debate would be easy to contest.
Another way to demonstrate the dubious argument presented in Example 2 is related. That is, any claims of false equivalence are likely to be made by excluding from scope relevant evidence. A political scientist who argues Example 2 might believe that the US and Afghanistan have sufficient similarities to consider the two nations equal, or a propagandist may deliberately attempt to persuade people of the equivalence. But a teenager learning about the world is far more likely just to be ignorant of certain facts. Thus, the conclusions they draw may simply be an unintentional exclusion of relevant propositions that affect the calculus of the argument. This is just the nature of defeasible reasoning (SEP). The same student may just have concluded based on their trips to Cancun, Canada, and England, that Afghanistan is a lot like the US and the First World.
Appeal to Authority/Popularity
Lastly, there may be presuppositions involved regarding the fact that the US has the world's largest GDP and military/intelligence apparatus as the lone superpower. Given the authority of the US in a number of matters (including making movies and incarcerating its own people), a claimant may presume that EVERYONE should emulate the US; highly related to that would be the idea that since the US was a major influence in the adoption of constitutional democracy to Western Europe and other nations, that given the wide-spread movement away from autocracies like monarchies, dictatorships, and theocracies, that Afghanistan is best off with a secular constitutional democracy. After all, look at how the kings and queens have disappeared, and free market capitalism and fractional lending have been successful. And yet, these are normative claims. Perhaps polygynous child brides, burqas, and maiming and executions for petty offenses is right for the Afghan people and such decisions should be left to the Taliban to decide. (Obviously I'm a chauvanist against such practices).
So, do people often presume that a major power like the US can simply rebuild other nations in its image? Absolutely. US foreign policy is a litany of attempts to destabilize regimes (including democratically elected ones). Is there bad reasoning involved. Doubtless. But the question of which fallacy might be at play requires both the provision of a specific argument and an analysis of the underlying language to give specific analyses.