It is rather bizarre that I was defending the actions of a Democratic administration. At least in once incident. 
Daoloth, for the millionth time-they were decidedly ANTI-SOVIET!
Hell, the FMLN is now part of the government-are they connected with Cuba today?
In fact, I would guess that the only reason Cuba and Nicaragua turned to the Soviets is that they were willing to help out-when the US was not.
Gah, my error.
Enough history, God damn it! Enough history! What should the U.S. be doing in Latin America NOW?
Apologizing.
Being that I started this thread to debate HISTORY, why are you complaining?
What should the US being doing? Well, closing the School of the Americas might be a good start.
One nitpick: It is no longer the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA), it was replaced by the new shiny Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC).
It is not just me, many who are opposed to the school of the Americas see that as a purely cosmetic change.
Daoloth, I see your point, but I think a subsequent kind and benevolent conquest of a nation is not reason enough to then retroactively justify what even the American people eventually saw: we invaded not for the good of the Dominican nation, but for their resources. I think we evaded another Veracruz there just by luck.
Or did we? In the 30’s Rafael Leonidas Trujillo emerged from the U.S.-trained National Guard (The one the US organized to control the highwaymen) to become dictator of the Dominican Republic, (needless to say: the US virtually looked the other way during his repression) I always wonder if he was the inspiration to make a school specially for guys like him…
I apologize for my shrill tone, Guinastasia. It’s just that you all are debating the rights and wrongs of the Carter and Reagan administrations, and I’m almost 40 and this stuff already seems archaic to me. It’s like hearing Baby Boomers wrangle over who really shot Kennedy, or whether the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was unconstitutional. It’s in the past.
But Latin America is not in the past. It’s still there. It’s still our back yard. And it’s still the home of hundreds of millions of peasants, still living under the conditions Romero and the FMLN and the Sandinistas hoped to change. I don’t think those peasants will ever just quiet down and accept their lot. Look at Chiapas. It could happen anywhere. Left-wing politics are moribund in the U.S. but they are still very real in Latin America.
We, as a country, have to start making some decisions: The Cold War is over. Whatever interest we might have in intervening in a leftist uprising in a foreign country, the calculations of Cold War alliance and power-sphere politics no longer apply. We must justify such intervention, if at all, on other grounds, such as 1) regional stability, 2) the people’s right not to live under socialism even if they think they want to, and 3) protection of U.S. property and business interests in the country in question. Are these considerations enough to justify intervention? Maybe we should start just leaving Latin American politics alone.
Or, as I hinted above – maybe we should go on intervening but switch sides. Help leftist movements take power and keep it, at least long enough to put through some effective land reform. Just so long as it isn’t Cuban-style land reform, with the state taking all the land. Thomas Jefferson thought highly of a society of independent small farmers. If the peasants of a Latin American country own their own property, they probably will quiet down, at least a little, and everything will be much more safe and stable in the long run.
Does anyone have any contrary opinions? A lot of you on this thread have argued that the U.S. was justified in siding against the FMLN and the Sandinistas. Fine, do you apply the same thinking to leftist movements active now? There’s still an intractable civil war in Colombia. Should we be sending in U.S. troops? What about Chavez in Venezuela? The Bush Administration was ready and eager to help the coup plotters give him the boot. Are you prepared to justify that? If so, do you advise trying again, with more direct U.S. involvement? What about the Zapatistas in Mexico? Should we be helping put the rebellion down? Suppose the next Mexican election brings the leftist PRD to power – what does that mean for U.S.-Mexican relations?
You happen to be totally ignoring the fact that the US armed the people who killed him.
BrainGlutton - from your lips to the ears of Allah!
I am not, you are ignoring that you tried to make the invasion of 1916 look good by forgetting the results.
Of course, you are forgetting also what happened to the conspirators that killed Trujillo, and what that lead to: to yet another American intervention.
Going back to subject:
I basically agree with BrainGlutton, but the case of Colombia has another element tossed in: the drug war. I think the drug money is preventing any resolution; and corruption by drug money is affecting both sides. Still, I do see many similarities to what happened in Central America.
Now, if America would consider this also and then end the drug war and cut their profits…
Well, one can dream.
On a related subject: Do Latin American nations that had dictators and borrowed money then, still have to pay now, to lender nations, when those nations were essentially keeping all those thugs in power? I do remember the US was one that tossed so much “aid” to Central America, and I do think interests are still being paid now.
In that case, I see forgiving that debt as one thing America (and other rich nations) should do now.
Well, debt relief was one of the issues my professor discussed, and he’s definitely for it.
I mean, will these countries ever manage to pay off their debts, anyways?
Yes, you were.
“(needless to say: the US virtually looked the other way during his repression)”
You said that without even referencing the fact that the US was instrumental in his downfall. Construing his demise is hardly “looking the other way.”
Furthermore, I did not forget the results of the 1916 invasion. You have yet to prove that it reaped more negative consequences than good ones.
Obviously you don’t now what “virtually” means…
And Trujillo was not a negative? I see him as one dictator that only at the very end of his rule began to do things his own way, and THAT was the reason the US reacted (in secret) if it had been in the open, maybe we could have had the scenario of the us helping the other side as BrainGlutton mentioned, instead, the result was abandoning the opposition to a grisly death.
That is not my main point anyhow, only yours, my main point is not to prove negative or good consequences, but that the reason for intervention has proven to be, if not shameful, appalling, Butler was right about the reasons for the invasion, I will let you playing with your “good consequences”.
You could draw a parallel that at one time, Saddam Husein was once “our” dictator, and only later did we turn on him (with good reason, of course).
Why not just try NOT supporting dictators in the first place?