What happens when the rule of law breaks down...

[Sindawe]

Its OK, javafiend, I was a Liberal once, too. I once believed all that Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky garbage. Distortions, lies, and the surreal emphasis of quoting exact numbers, names and dates of things that you don't know anything about.

Can you refute javafeind's citations of USG involvement in these barbarous actions with more than accusations of "Liberal kool-aid"? If so, I'd love to see it.

 

[carebear]

Would it be out of line to point out that we don't blame Harvard when one of their graduates uses their legal training to try and get away with a crime?

Just cause the Marines taught me all sorts of stuff about killing doesn't, by definition, make them culpable for me misusing that education for evil.

I sincerely doubt "Bestial Rape Techniques 101" was on the syllabus at the SOA.

 

[Old Dog]

C'mon, Carebear ... quit making sense.

The U.S. government's long and sordid history of involvement in Guatemalan affairs is undeniable. That the CIA not only sponsored the '54 coup, but also repeatedly lied to multiple U.S. presidents about its activities in Guatemala is also a matter of record. That said, however, one cannot hold the U.S. and the SoA to blame as the cause of the current atrocities taking place in Guatemala.

 

[Gordon Fink]

And you when were able to inform the Truman administration of this? Did you save your insight for before or after the USSR rolled over eastern europe? Maybe you informed the generals of the divisions of hte German Army in the closing days of WWII, “Not to worry. The Russkies are guaranteed to fail.”

Gordon, that’s 20/20 hindsight at its absolute finest.

Until the “illegal” dockworker strike at Gdansk and the rise of Lech Walesa, there was a justifiably reasonable fear of the military power of the Kremlin-led Warsaw [Pact] forces.

Why do we oppose socialism? Because it’s a system guaranteed to impoverish itself and fail in the long run, yes?

All we had to do was to keep Soviet tanks out of western Europe while socialist states withered on the vine. Successful capitalism is what won the Cold War. It’s unfortunate that our leaders lacked the strength of the convictions they proclaimed.

Oh, I realize that they believed the threat was real and that the Soviets also sponsored subversion, but I maintain that the cold warriors used poor judgment more often than not.

~G. Fink

 

[Art Eatman]

javafiend, I really doubt there was any reason for Kissinger, et al, to have any foreknowledge of such events as the nuns' murders. My point is that we provided some degree of support for almost any tinhorn who'd claim to be anti-communist. That we provided support did not mean we were involved in all the various misdeeds. We were, at times, suckered by the tinhorns' claims that this group or that was indeed Communist--which often was BS. The problem was that it was often hard to tell if some protest group was or was not Communist or was or was not sympathetic to the Communists.

The accuracy of and the flow of information up and down between agencies and bureaucracies was worse then than it is now. Think of the 9/11 discussions about "Intel" and then look back and shudder.

There is a reason I'm hesitant to believe all these "evils" as being wilful and deliberate: In 1957 I happened to be in the Base Commander's office at Hq US EuCom. The Colonel commented casually to his Exec, "Y'know, the place doesn't really look all that nice." By the time the word got from the Exec to the Captain of the EM company to the First Sgt to us, it was, "The Base Commander is really POed at what a ----hole this place is, and you guys are gonna get it CLEAN!"

I'm not saying that everything we did was right and proper. It was a time of high tension and fear, and there was a heckuva lot of "Any port in a storm" sort of thinking or behavior. IOW, understandable.

Art

 

[shermacman]

Sindawe asks in a misguided attempt to bag moonbat slut-puppies:

Can you refute javafeind's citations of USG involvement in these barbarous actions with more than accusations of "Liberal kool-aid"? If so, I'd love to see it.

Why, yes I can, in javafiends own words (in fact, I can even spell javafiend):

Sometimes we have to wait years or decades later for documents to be declassiefied, for principals to write their memoris, etc., in order to get a better sense of the truth.

In the caffeine-ravaged brain the search for truth begins and ends when America can be blamed. When javefiend quotes Noam Chomsky, who wrote an explanation excusing Pol Pot, then the coffee has gone stale. They cease to be facts, and start to become pedagogy.

 

[Sindawe]

Why, yes I can, in javafiends own words (in fact, I can even spell javafiend):

OK, so occasionally my dyslexia gets past the the spell checker. Gee, aren't you clever for spotting it.

In the caffeine-ravaged brain the search for truth begins and ends when America can be blamed. When javefiend quotes Noam Chomsky, who wrote an explanation excusing Pol Pot, then the coffee has gone stale. They cease to be facts, and start to become pedagogy.

Hmmmm...all I see there is opinion, not citation of sources to refute javafiend's assertions.

Sindawe asks in a misguided attempt to bag moonbat slut-puppies:

Maybe you should click that link on the upper right of your screen and brush up on the house rules.

 

[CARRY'IN]

do you really think that the word of what was going on in the various coutnries like Guatemala ever got to a higher level of responsibility than, say, Colonel, at the time such things were happening?

That is a good point Art. Really. But it does nothing to justify what our government did. If anything it makes us even more responsible. The commander and chief just tells his subordinates to "go and do no harm" with a wink and nudge and that lets him off the hook? No.

 

[gc70]

Of the 27 soldiers cited for that massacre by a 1993 UN Truth Commission, 19 were SOA graduates.

Great statistic. Of course, correlation does not imply causation.

 

[MechAg94]

I always find it amusing on internet threads. People make wild accusations and assertions mixed with facts that don't prove anything, yet somehow it becomes everyone else's responsibility to cite sources and links. If you think the US govt is the root of all evil, prove it. I am not buying it.


The oppressors down there have been doing it far longer than we have been around to get involved. They learned that tradition from the Spanish a long time ago and probably from the Aztec and Incan Kings and priests before that. There is not a very long history of democracy and freedom in those areas.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Besides the author of the article Preacherman quoted at the top of this thread, who said the U.S. government was the root of all evil? Pointing out our poor decisions and dubious allies from the Cold War doesn’t equal blaming the U.S. for all the world’s ills.

~G. Fink

 

[Sindawe]

If you think the US govt is the root of all evil, prove it. I am not buying it.

No, I don't think the US govt is the root of all that is evil in this world. Thats a gross over simplification of the problem Our central govt has done a lot that is good. Mostly adhered to its charter until about 1930ish; defeated two particularly nasty forms of Stateism in open warfare, and a third in not so open war; put our species on the beginings of the path to space; admitted some of its misdeeds and attempted to compensate those it wronged, some of whom were its own citizens.

It has also done some vile wrongs to its own populace, and to those who live outside our borders. It situation can be described as follows: We have a problem child. For most of its life, this child was relatively well behaived with only now and again falling into a destructive tantrum. Now, when a problem child acts up, beats up its peers and steals their lunch money, it does nobody any good to shake our finger at the problem child, and console ourselves that "...its was naughty, but at least its not a naughty that problem child across the river that sells drugs and runs with gangs...". The problem child need to be taken behind the woodshed and have some respect whipped into its hide.

Sadly, for too long we as a people have accepted the problem childs excuses of "Well, I don't sell drugs and run with gangs, I only did it becuase I love you." Now, in addition to our problem child running about the neighborhood busting up stuff, making the neighbors angry at us, its is busting up our stuff and telling us "Do as *I* say, or you'll be be sorry."

Our problem child is LOONG overdue for a sound spanking and being sent to bed without dessert.

 

[CARRY'IN]

People make wild accusations and assertions mixed with facts that don't prove anything,

Yeah, Mech, and people try to belittle, intimidate, and cover-up by saying exactly what you just did. You are the one who cant prove anything.

 

[javafiend]

Would it be out of line to point out that we don't blame Harvard when one of their graduates uses their legal training to try and get away with a crime?

When the Iranian government trains, arms and finances Hezbollah or Hamas or whoever, and then such groups go out and commit heinous acts, we properly recognize the responsibility of the circus-masters for the acts of the clowns.

In 1983, Colonel Francisco del Cid Diaz (then a 2nd Lieutenant) commanded a unit that committed an atrocity. In 1992 the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights stated that there was substantial evidence that Col. del Cid Diaz and the other ranking officer present gave the orders to execute, and recommended that the Salvadoran government bring them to justice. Instead of facing justice, we find that Col. del Cid Diaz was at the WHINSEC in 2003, and was also enrolled in SOA in 1988 and 1991.

That is, even after he committed the atrocity, he still was given instruction at the School of the Americas (which is, BTW, widely known as the School of Assassins throughout Latin Americas). Did anyone check his resume?

javefiend quotes Noam Chomsky, who wrote an explanation excusing Pol Pot,

False. Chomsky never wrote an excuse for Pol Pot. (BTW, did you know that even after Pol Pot and his KR committed genocide, the USG supported them?)

If you think the US govt is the root of all evil, prove it. I am not buying it.

I repeat: NO ONE here in THR is claiming that the USG is the root of all evil.

It is incumbent upon us to honestly and critically evaluate the history of our government's policies and their impact on the world. To turn away, or to engage in sophistry or apologetics, or to simply reject a priori all criticisms as "anti-American" or evidence that the speaker "blames America first," is to sink to the moral level of a "Good German" circa 1933 - 1945.

 

[longeyes]

It has also done some vile wrongs to its own populace, and to those who live outside our borders. It situation can be described as follows: We have a problem child. For most of its life, this child was relatively well behaived with only now and again falling into a destructive tantrum. Now, when a problem child acts up, beats up its peers and steals their lunch money, it does nobody any good to shake our finger at the problem child, and console ourselves that "...its was naughty, but at least its not a naughty that problem child across the river that sells drugs and runs with gangs...". The problem child need to be taken behind the woodshed and have some respect whipped into its hide.

Good metaphor. Two thumbs up.

 

[SteveS]

In Chile the USG terminated a long tradition of constitutional democratic ruel in 1973. See The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability by Peter Kornbluh.

I'll have to look for that book. I believe that the situation in Chile is somewhat more complicated than it appears. I would never begin to defend the Pinochet regime, but I believe that it is possible that the US was genuine concerned about having another Soviet-backed government in this part of the world. Allende had mismanaged Chile to the point where Russian "aid" was certainly possible. Was Chile better off after the coup? Probably not. Was the US? Maybe. What would have happened if Allende has stayed in power?

Another good book is: Remembering Pinochet's Chile: On the Eve of London, 1998 by Steve Stern.

 

[MikeIsaj]

What happens when the rule of law breaks down...

Just keep watching New Orleans for the next few days. You'll find out.

 

[carebear]

java,

There is a certain moral difference between a curricula that teaches small unit tactics and classic Western counter-insurgency techniques and the classes on how to take over aircraft, blow up civilians with IED's and manufacture car bombs that Hamas was getting.

I'm not trying to justify dealing with thugs, but we didn't teach them how to use rape as a terror weapon or how to put bamboo shoots into fingernails At Benning. They did that independent study somewhere else.

 

[javafiend]

I'll have to look for that book. I believe that the situation in Chile is somewhat more complicated than it appears.

I concur, and let us remember that no single book is the final word on the situation - or on any situation. Nonetheless, Kornbluh's study is a significant contribution to our knowledge of the events surrounding 9-11-1973, a day of infamy for Chile, Latina America, and the world community. It is an excellent place to start.

I would never begin to defend the Pinochet regime, but I believe that it is possible that the US was genuine concerned about having another Soviet-backed government in this part of the world.

That is absolutely a bona fide concern.

As an electoral victory by Salvador Allende appeared increasingly likely, it was this concern that prompted President Nixon's National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, in summer 1970 to order professional analysts in the CIA, State Department, and Defense Department to conduct a major study into the implications for the United States of a victory at the polls by Allende and his Unidad Popular coalition.

The intelligence assessment that they produced in August 1970 was called National Security Study Memorandum 97. "Regarding threats to US interests," NSSM 97 stated, "we conclude that:

1. The US has no vital national interests within Chile. There would, however, be tangible economic interests.
2. The world military balance of power would not be significantly altered by an Allende victory."

Furthermore, they did not foresee "any likely threat ot the peace of the region." NSSM 97 concluded that an Allende election victory carried no strategic, military or regional threat to US interests in security and stability. A secret CIA supplement addressed the advantages and disadvantages of fostering a coup.

According to the CIA

There is almost no way to evaluate the likelihood that such an attempt would bve successful even if it were made. An unsuccessful attempt, involving as it probably would revelation of US participation, would have grave consequences for our relations with Chile, in the hemisphere, in the United States and elsewhere in the world."

SteveS asked:

What would have happened if Allende has stayed in power?

Interesting question. In my humble opinion, his socialist economic policies would have caused considerable problems for many Chileans. The economy would have hit the skids, and it is a strong possibility that the Chileans would either have impeached him and removed him from office, or have simply voted him out in the 1976 presidential elections. Maybe they would have kept parts of his platform since nationalization of Chilean copper really was wildly popular at the time. In the end it's hard to tell, of course, but remember that the most important thing here is that it was rightly a decision for the Chileans to make, not for Nixon, Kissinger and a handful of their domestic cronies and Chilean allies.

The US could have simply voiced its opinion that Allende was picking wrong-headed economic policies while nonetheless pledging not to interfere with the long tradition of constitutional rule in Chile. Instead, the US gave weapons and encouragement to men who subsequently murdered Chilean General Rene Schneider, a constitutionalist, thus paving the way for a putsch by General Pinochet and 18 years of fascism.

As former US Secretary of State Colin Powell observed, "It is not a part of American history that we are proud of."

Carebear, the USG taught its national security doctrine and counter-insurgency warfare to Latin American military pupils, who then went home to their US-supplied armies and police forces and overthrew their elected government, ran death squad ops against civilians, tortured dissidents, and generally repressed their own populations. The US should not protect corrupt governments from the wrath of their own people.

 

[carebear]

Carebear, the USG taught its national security doctrine and counter-insurgency warfare to Latin American military pupils, who then went home to their US-supplied armies and police forces and overthrew their elected government, ran death squad ops against civilians, tortured dissidents, and generally repressed their own populations. The US should not protect corrupt governments from the wrath of their own people.

Two very different things. We should teach our allies to defeat (insert bogeyman of choice) using the best methods in line with our beliefs we can. That's what allies do.

Whether these guys should have been our allies is a different question, decided not at the SOA but by State and the Nat'l Command Authority.

In any event, we didn't teach them their thuggish evilness at the SOA, so the SOA shouldn't be blamed for those actions. As far as repressing their people, we didn't tell them to do that either, and responsibility for LETTING them continue to be allies after doing so stops at the politicians' doors.

Different issues, different actors, different responsibilities.

 

[LadySmith]

Ok, this thread started out with women being horribly murdered in Guatemala and is now on a foreign policy tangent. Back to the women...what could be done to help them? Weapons & training for the women? Self-esteem classes? Lorena Bobbitt? What?

 

[SteveS]

Interesting question. In my humble opinion, his socialist economic policies would have caused considerable problems for many Chileans. The economy would have hit the skids, and it is a strong possibility that the Chileans would either have impeached him and removed him from office, or have simply voted him out in the 1976 presidential elections.

Is there any evidence that Allende sought Soviet help? His socialist policies did cause hardship and rampant inflation. OTOH, they elected him, so it was their choice.

but remember that the most important thing here is that it was rightly a decision for the Chileans to make, not for Nixon, Kissinger and a handful of their domestic cronies and Chilean allies.

Very true.

 

[Art Eatman]

Probably wouldn't hurt to start an Allende thread over at http://www.armedpolitesociety.com


LadySmith, I don't know of any real-world thing which could have been done. How could there have been both a regime change, insofar as laws and judicial system, and cultural change of the machismo attitudes?

Seems to me it's the same thing as regards Sharia and the Islamic treatment of women. By our standards, that's bad-nasty repression...

Art

 

[dpesec]

Preacherman, you were just a few days ahead of your time.
We're seeing this happening right now in our country

 

[Strings]

Weren't there rumors of female Mossad agents being dropped into Afganistan, with the purpose of destabalizing the religious police? Anybody think we could find a few like that, and drop 'em in?

I'm thinkin' a couple thousand Tamaras would be perfect on the streets of Guatemala...