US military support for troubled states: a dangerous doctrine returns

[unhappycamper]

US military support for troubled states: a dangerous doctrine returns
By Dennis C. Jett / August 20, 2010

State College, Pa. - While ambassador to the United Nations during the Reagan administration, Jeane Kirkpatrick often argued that the United States should befriend authoritarian governments if they supported Washington’s policies. Because America was in the midst of fighting the cold war, her advice was often followed. While getting into bed with dictators did nothing to help win the war, it certainly made a mockery of American claims of respect for human rights and democracy.

Today an argument is being made that the United States, in effect, has to employ an undated version of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine to win the so-called war on terrorism. In a recent article in the journal “Foreign Affairs,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asserted that a terrorist attack emanating from a failed state is the biggest security challenge the United States faces. He proposed responding to such a threat by strengthening the militaries of countries that are in danger of failing so they can prevent their territory from being used for that purpose.

That cannot be done without the US once again embracing repressive regimes and leaving the rest of the world with the impression that it jettisons its values the moment it perceives a threat to its security. That will not just damage America’s image abroad. It will encourage new recruits and additional support for terrorist organizations. And American intervention will often weaken the regime that is supposed to be helped by unifying and motivating its enemies.

~snip~

It should also be pointed out that Afghanistan, from which Al Qaeda launched its attack on the United States, was not a failed state in one sense. The Taliban, who were in power at the time, were firmly in charge (except for small patches in the north controlled by United Front rebels). The problem was not that they failed to control their territory, but that they actively collaborated with Al Qaeda. That would not have happened if democracy had ever had a chance.

It’s true that it is much harder to strengthen the institutions of democracy than it is to add muscle to a foreign nation’s military. It’s also harder to measure the “results” of building a nation’s capacity for self-government. That’s why there will always be greater pressure to boost military might, even though it will increase, rather than diminish, threats to America’s security. The post 9/11 hysteria still lingers among those politicians and pundits who demand that the government must “keep America safe” from any terrorist threat, real or imagined. That argues for endless foreign adventures, even when the best course of action is to do nothing at all.

[Peace Patriot]

1. The CS Monitor went to the "dark side" early in the Bush Junta...

...(or that is when I first noticed it) so I treat their blatherations the same way I treat those of the New York Slimes, the Wall Street Urinal, the Miami Hairball, the Washington Past, the Associated Pukes, Rotters and the rest of the corpo-fascist media liars and CIA outlets: with complete skepticism. Read between the lines, dig into the half-truths, untwist the distortions and peer deeply into the black holes where information should be--in order to guess what's really going on, if you want to bother with this (it is sometimes useful), but DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THEY PRINT.

I'll have to think of an appropriate name for them. The Christian Science Monotony? (They are also flabby-brained and very boring--not the ace warmongers that, say, the New York Slimes are).

Anyway. This article.

Take its first assumption--that Jeanne Kirkpatrick's rancid "philosophy" of supporting "authoritarian regimes" has ever gone away.

"Today an argument is being made that the United States, in effect, has to employ an undated version of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine to win the so-called war on terrorism."

The implication is that this idea is...um...new? Just now being re-warmed? But let's look at the whole paragraph...

"Today an argument is being made that the United States, in effect, has to employ an undated version of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine to win the so-called war on terrorism. In a recent article in the journal 'Foreign Affairs,' Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asserted that a terrorist attack emanating from a failed state is the biggest security challenge the United States faces. He proposed responding to such a threat by strengthening the militaries of countries that are in danger of failing so they can prevent their territory from being used for that purpose."

Anyone who has paid any attention at all to U.S. policy in Latin America knows that, starting back in the Clinton regime, the U.S. began larding $7 BILLION in military aid on the narco-thugs running Colombia, where the military and its rightwing paramilitary death squads have murdered thousands of trade unionists, human rights workers, community activists, teachers, political leftists, journalists, peasant farmers and others, and have forced some 5 MILLION peasant farmers off their land--the second worst human displacement crisis on earth. The first excuse used for this anti-democratic bloodbath was the U.S. "war on drugs," to which the Bushwhacks added the U.S. "war on terror." (Colombia's ruling gangsters have been involved in a civil war with leftist guerrilla groups for over 40 years.)

While propping up the mass murderers running Colombia, the U.S. meanwhile supported a rightwing coup against Venezuela's democracy next door. The coupsters first act, after kidnapping the elected president, was to suspend the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights--all of this applauded in Washington. Luckily, democracy is strong in Venezuela and tens of thousands of people surrounded Miraflores palace in Caracas--the seat of government--demanding that their Constitution be restored (first demand), that their president be returned, and that the government they elected be put back in power. The crowd would not go away; it grew to a million people; elements of the military defected to democracy and order was restored.

But the U.S. has never stopped trying to topple Venezuelan democracy--to this day--including supporting a crippling oil bosses' lockout, funding a rightwing recall election against Chavez (which Chavez won, hands down), on-going funding of the rightwing opposition (via USAID), numerous plots and dirty tricks, a non-stop campaign of lies and disinformation, and, recently, surrounding Venezuela's Caribbean oil coast and northern oil provinces with U.S. war assets.

In addition, the U.S. recently took down Honduras' elected president, and Honduran democracy, mainly because President Zelaya--like many other Latin American leaders (presidents of Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Nicaragua and others) is an ally of Chavez.

Why does the U.S. hate Chavez (and, by implication--but never stated--the people who elected and re-elected Chavez, in an election system that is far, far more transparent than our own)?

Not because he or the people of Venezuela pose any threat whatsoever to the U.S. but because the Chavez government is acting in the interests of their people--for instance, renegotiating the oil contracts with multinationals (the oil was nationalized prior to Chavez) to get a BETTER DEAL for Venezuela. A better deal! Exxon Mobil didn't like any better deal for Venezuela. They walked out. But the other multinationals agreed--and more are now joining them (recent deal with seven more oil corps), because Venezuela has the biggest oil reserves on earth (twice Saudi Arabia's, according to a recent USGS study). Chavez renegotiated a 10/90 giveaway to the oil corps to a 50/50 agreement, with the new government oil revenues going to social programs (education, universal free medical care, etc.).

THIS is why the U.S. government, in its service to its multinational masters and war profiteers--no matter who is in charge of the details, Pukes or Democrats--hates Chavez and is not only funding an extremely corrupt authoritarian regime next door in Colombia, but just signed a U.S./Colombia military agreement basically arranging for U.S. military occupation of Colombia.

As one coup general in Honduras put it, their coup was intended "to prevent communism from Venezuela reaching the United States." (--quoted in a report on the coup by the Zelaya government-in-exile).

Jeanne Kirkpatrick could not have put it better. Today. Now. 2009. 2010. But free college education for the poor, free universal medical care, decent wages, pensions, equal rights, support for small businesses, land reform, high public participation rates, and HONEST, TRANSPARENT elections ain't "communism" ! They are democratically achieved SOCIAL JUSTICE.

This is what billions of U.S. tax dollars are being used for, throughout Latin America and the world--to PREVENT social justice from encroaching on the profits of U.S. and other multinationals (BP, Shell, the World Bank)--to prop up rightwing regimes that act in "U.S. interests"--not your interests or my interests, but the interests of the super-rich who have no loyalty to any country or people--no matter how hideous those regimes are (Colombia, for instance).

Recently, the outgoing pResident of Colombia--a U.S. tool who used to work for the Medellin Cartel--Alvaro Uribe, accused Venezuela of "harboring" leftist guerillas, in a performance at the OAS reminiscent of Colin Powell's bullshit at the UN about WMDs in Iraq, which had prepared the U.S. slaughter of one hundred thousand innocent people in the bombing of Baghdad alone, to steal their oil.

Chavez's many allies and diplomats throughout Latin America went into motion, upon these absurd and unsupported charges, fearing that the Pentagon was trying to trigger a war, and brokered a peace between Chavez/Venezuela and the incoming CIA tool in Colombia, the former Defense Minister, Manuel Santos. Also, the Colombian Supreme Court just ruled the U.S./Colombia military deal unconstitutional. Whether these measures will guarantee peace in the region is an open question. The only conflict that seriously threatens peace in Latin America is the U.S.-stoked civil war in Colombia. Colombia has resisted many offers to help broker an end to their civil war because, frankly, it's their "gravy train" ($7 BILLION in U.S. military aid!). That conflict can, at any time, be used to start a regional war with U.S. involvement. If any of the purported 1,500 U.S. soldiers or U.S. military 'contractors' in Colombia gets shot at in a border incident with Venezuela, or an incident is trumped up to make it look that way, U.S. Oil War II may be on.

This article is riddled with false assumptions and black holes where information should be. It OMITS the FACT that U.S. policy in Latin America is anti-democratic. It promotes the false notion that the U.S. government WANTS to "build democracy" if only it could get past the idea that we need to arm hideous regimes to "keep us safe." The U.S. government does not want to "build democracy" anywhere, not even here, where our votes are 'counted' mostly by one, private, far rightwing-connected corporation (ES&S, which just bought out Diebold) with 'TRADE SECRET' programming code and virtually no audit/recount controls. The U.S. government, acting in the interests of multinational corporations and war profiteers, wants toady governments, bought and paid for governments, fascist governments, run by U.S. tools, whereever there are resources or labor forces to be exploited.

Whether they do it with democracy cosmetics--as in Honduras, or as they are currently trying to do in Colombia--or economic warfare, or outright war, the goal is U.S. domination of markets, resources and people, not democracy, not self-rule, not social justice.