CRad
03-30-2005, 00:43
I thought this was interesting. A friend working down in LatAm sent it. He also sent regards to NDD as they were once on the same team. (Jr demo guy I believe)
____
In military terms, the Western Hemisphere is the strategic rear area of the
United States. The U.S. needs a secure and prosperous hemisphere not only to
ensure a peaceful neighborhood in which to live, but also to be able to
project its power to the farthest reaches of the globe and win the War on
Terror.
What is happening in our neighborhood? Press reports indicate that a
leftist-populist alliance is engulfing most of South America. Some Andean
and Central American countries are sliding back from economic reforms and
narcotics eradication, and the Caribbean remains irrationally hostile to the
U.S. This is the reality U.S. policymakers must confront; and our most
pressing specific challenge is neutralizing or defeating the Cuba-Venezuela
axis. With the combination of Castro’s evil genius, experience in political
warfare, and economic desperation, and Chávez’s unlimited money and
recklessness, the peace of this region is in peril.
A quarter-century ago, a democratic revolution began to stir in Latin
America and the Caribbean. Today, that revolution is in danger of being
reversed. When Ronald Reagan came to power in 1981, more than three-quarters
of the region’s citizens lived under undemocratic regimes, mostly right-wing
military juntas, but also a few left-wing dictatorships. By 1981, the Soviet
Union and its cat’s paw, Fidel Castro, had succeeded in backing Marxist
takeovers in two nations close to U.S. shores: Grenada and Nicaragua.
Financed by the Soviets and by local kidnappings, drug trafficking, bank
robberies, and other criminal activities, Castro had spread his ideology of
violence throughout the Caribbean and Central America. By January 10, 1981,
ten days before Reagan’s first inauguration, the Castro-supplied Marxist
FMLN guerrilla group in El Salvador felt so confident of victory over a
moderate civilian-military junta that it launched what it called a “Final
Offensive” to give Reagan an “inaugural gift” of a Communist El Salvador.
In South America, a “dirty war” of left-wing violence in Argentina, Brazil,
and Uruguay had led to an equal and opposite reaction by right-wing military
regimes. At the hands of both sides, untold thousands were murdered,
tortured, or “disappeared,” under horrible conditions whose consequences are
with us to this day (some members of those leftist movements are among the
leaders democratically elected recently in South America). The Reagan
administration withstood severe attacks from the usual wrong-headed suspects
in Congress, the media, academia, and the churches, but managed to roll back
the Communist aggression — even this language now seems outdated, but it is
accurate.
THE LEFT’S RESURGENCE
By 1990, the tide had turned: There was not one
right-wing military government still in office (something for which Reagan
is not given credit in the so-called prestige press); over 90 percent of the
region’s population was living under elected governments; and most of the
remaining leftist regimes or terrorist movements, such as the Sandinistas in
Nicaragua, Noriega in Panama, and the FMLN in El Salvador, had few months of
political life left. The worst dictatorship remaining was Castro’s: His
regime was crumbling faster than usual with the end of $5 billion annual
Soviet subsidies. Free-market policies and individual initiative fueled a
promising return to prosperity in the Americas.
Today that progress — the legacy of freedom and democracy Reagan fought for
— is being threatened, and so is U.S. national security. Not only is Castro
still in power, but he is being kept afloat financially by Venezuela’s
oil-fueled charity; the Sandinistas are making a comeback in Nicaragua; and
violent radical groups menace democracy from Bolivia to Haiti. In recent
years, left-of-center leaders have come to power in Chile, Brazil, Ecuador,
Argentina, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, and Uruguay.
Should we worry about these leftists? In general, yes. We know that
socialist prescriptions do not provide a solution for the problems of
developing nations — and as the chief importer of goods and of people in
this hemisphere; the U.S. will pay the price of their success or failure. We
would much rather pay the price in imported goods and services from
successful societies than bear the cost of surplus populations, crime, and
drugs exported by failed states. Another reason we should worry about some
of these newly elected leaders is that often, former revolutionaries have
acquired authoritarian habits that are hard to break. We, along with our
allies, must keep a close watch on whether these presidents respect the
human rights of their citizens. If a government is going to attempt to
destabilize a neighbor, or establish an authoritarian regime, it must begin
by violating the civil and political rights of its own people — by, for
example, intimidating the press and muzzling free speech, controlling the
labor unions, manipulating the currency, undermining private enterprise, and
all the while creating public distractions by blaming foreign devils for the
ills of the nation. And when governments take this path — as did the
Argentine generals in the 1980s with the Falkland Islands, and Castro and
Chávez more recently — they pose a threat to the survival of their
neighbors.
Of course, we cannot put all the leftists in one basket. We must
differentiate between individuals, and listen to what they say. Throughout
history, Western democracies, including the U.S., have erred in ignoring the
rhetoric of future despots. In the 1930s, few Europeans or Americans
believed Hitler’s Mein Kampf to be a viable blueprint for the takeover of
Germany and for a war of aggression and extermination by a racist political
regime (some exceptions to this rule, like Churchill, were labeled
warmongers and ridiculed by the intelligentsia). American “opinion leaders”
have always downplayed the threat posed by Castro, even after Castro begged
Nikita Khrushchev to launch a Soviet nuclear attack against the U.S. at the
height of the 1962 missile crisis. Many of these same congressmen,
academics, journalists, and diplomats now minimize or ignore another
would-be dictator in Venezuela. The U.S. cannot afford to follow them in
this mistake, because Chávez has what Castro has always wanted — lots of
money — and could use it to do great harm.
____
In military terms, the Western Hemisphere is the strategic rear area of the
United States. The U.S. needs a secure and prosperous hemisphere not only to
ensure a peaceful neighborhood in which to live, but also to be able to
project its power to the farthest reaches of the globe and win the War on
Terror.
What is happening in our neighborhood? Press reports indicate that a
leftist-populist alliance is engulfing most of South America. Some Andean
and Central American countries are sliding back from economic reforms and
narcotics eradication, and the Caribbean remains irrationally hostile to the
U.S. This is the reality U.S. policymakers must confront; and our most
pressing specific challenge is neutralizing or defeating the Cuba-Venezuela
axis. With the combination of Castro’s evil genius, experience in political
warfare, and economic desperation, and Chávez’s unlimited money and
recklessness, the peace of this region is in peril.
A quarter-century ago, a democratic revolution began to stir in Latin
America and the Caribbean. Today, that revolution is in danger of being
reversed. When Ronald Reagan came to power in 1981, more than three-quarters
of the region’s citizens lived under undemocratic regimes, mostly right-wing
military juntas, but also a few left-wing dictatorships. By 1981, the Soviet
Union and its cat’s paw, Fidel Castro, had succeeded in backing Marxist
takeovers in two nations close to U.S. shores: Grenada and Nicaragua.
Financed by the Soviets and by local kidnappings, drug trafficking, bank
robberies, and other criminal activities, Castro had spread his ideology of
violence throughout the Caribbean and Central America. By January 10, 1981,
ten days before Reagan’s first inauguration, the Castro-supplied Marxist
FMLN guerrilla group in El Salvador felt so confident of victory over a
moderate civilian-military junta that it launched what it called a “Final
Offensive” to give Reagan an “inaugural gift” of a Communist El Salvador.
In South America, a “dirty war” of left-wing violence in Argentina, Brazil,
and Uruguay had led to an equal and opposite reaction by right-wing military
regimes. At the hands of both sides, untold thousands were murdered,
tortured, or “disappeared,” under horrible conditions whose consequences are
with us to this day (some members of those leftist movements are among the
leaders democratically elected recently in South America). The Reagan
administration withstood severe attacks from the usual wrong-headed suspects
in Congress, the media, academia, and the churches, but managed to roll back
the Communist aggression — even this language now seems outdated, but it is
accurate.
THE LEFT’S RESURGENCE
By 1990, the tide had turned: There was not one
right-wing military government still in office (something for which Reagan
is not given credit in the so-called prestige press); over 90 percent of the
region’s population was living under elected governments; and most of the
remaining leftist regimes or terrorist movements, such as the Sandinistas in
Nicaragua, Noriega in Panama, and the FMLN in El Salvador, had few months of
political life left. The worst dictatorship remaining was Castro’s: His
regime was crumbling faster than usual with the end of $5 billion annual
Soviet subsidies. Free-market policies and individual initiative fueled a
promising return to prosperity in the Americas.
Today that progress — the legacy of freedom and democracy Reagan fought for
— is being threatened, and so is U.S. national security. Not only is Castro
still in power, but he is being kept afloat financially by Venezuela’s
oil-fueled charity; the Sandinistas are making a comeback in Nicaragua; and
violent radical groups menace democracy from Bolivia to Haiti. In recent
years, left-of-center leaders have come to power in Chile, Brazil, Ecuador,
Argentina, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, and Uruguay.
Should we worry about these leftists? In general, yes. We know that
socialist prescriptions do not provide a solution for the problems of
developing nations — and as the chief importer of goods and of people in
this hemisphere; the U.S. will pay the price of their success or failure. We
would much rather pay the price in imported goods and services from
successful societies than bear the cost of surplus populations, crime, and
drugs exported by failed states. Another reason we should worry about some
of these newly elected leaders is that often, former revolutionaries have
acquired authoritarian habits that are hard to break. We, along with our
allies, must keep a close watch on whether these presidents respect the
human rights of their citizens. If a government is going to attempt to
destabilize a neighbor, or establish an authoritarian regime, it must begin
by violating the civil and political rights of its own people — by, for
example, intimidating the press and muzzling free speech, controlling the
labor unions, manipulating the currency, undermining private enterprise, and
all the while creating public distractions by blaming foreign devils for the
ills of the nation. And when governments take this path — as did the
Argentine generals in the 1980s with the Falkland Islands, and Castro and
Chávez more recently — they pose a threat to the survival of their
neighbors.
Of course, we cannot put all the leftists in one basket. We must
differentiate between individuals, and listen to what they say. Throughout
history, Western democracies, including the U.S., have erred in ignoring the
rhetoric of future despots. In the 1930s, few Europeans or Americans
believed Hitler’s Mein Kampf to be a viable blueprint for the takeover of
Germany and for a war of aggression and extermination by a racist political
regime (some exceptions to this rule, like Churchill, were labeled
warmongers and ridiculed by the intelligentsia). American “opinion leaders”
have always downplayed the threat posed by Castro, even after Castro begged
Nikita Khrushchev to launch a Soviet nuclear attack against the U.S. at the
height of the 1962 missile crisis. Many of these same congressmen,
academics, journalists, and diplomats now minimize or ignore another
would-be dictator in Venezuela. The U.S. cannot afford to follow them in
this mistake, because Chávez has what Castro has always wanted — lots of
money — and could use it to do great harm.