Neo-Wilsonian Folly (or Neo-Con Wars)

[ndebord]

This from a February 16th meeting in the Beltway, courtesy of UPI and the Independent Insititute, a libertarian thinktank out of California with a new office in D.C. http://www.independent.org/

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060217-124340-2942r

Is it time to cut and run from Iraq?

Gen. Wm. Odom is one of those who sees Iraq as a strategic policy mistake and wrote out leaving Iraq in detail in this piece:

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=63

[Lindsey]

Gen. Wm. Odom is one of those who sees Iraq as a strategic policy mistake
You're soft-pedalling it! What he actually said was much harsher: "The invasion of Iraq may well turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history."

Very sobering analysis -- thanks for the link.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

You're soft-pedalling it! What he actually said was much harsher: "The invasion of Iraq may well turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history."

Very sobering analysis -- thanks for the link.

--Lindsey

Well, with lukewarm support from the diehard sponsors of the war, can withdrawal be far behind?

http://www.slate.com/id/2137793/?nav=tap3

Rummie, the Administration's own point man on Iraq, sounded like a devotee of Greenspan with his doublespeak in front of the Senate Appropriations committee.

[Lindsey]

Rummie, the Administration's own point man on Iraq, sounded like a devotee of Greenspan with his doublespeak in front of the Senate Appropriations committee.
Frankly, I stopped listening to Rumsfeld when he came out with that remark about freedom meaning freedom to loot in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad.

And I just had to shake my head at this:

And speaking of people "rooted in history," as Rumsfeld put it, what on earth compelled him to make this comment (again, in his opening statement):

The enemy cannot win a single conventional battle, so they challenge us through non-traditional, asymmetric means, using terror as their weapon of choice.
Did he forget every bit of history he ever knew? They don't have to win; they only have to survive and wear us down. That's not only the lesson of the Vietmam war, it's the lesson of the American Revolution as well. Fortunately for us, George Washington was a quicker study than Rumsfeld.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Frankly, I stopped listening to Rumsfeld when he came out with that remark about freedom meaning freedom to loot in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad.

And I just had to shake my head at this:


Did he forget every bit of history he ever knew? They don't have to win; they only have to survive and wear us down. That's not only the lesson of the Vietmam war, it's the lesson of the American Revolution as well. Fortunately for us, George Washington was a quicker study than Rumsfeld.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

It just goes to show that the conservatives in America have allowed themselves to be seduced by a retread administration, led by a thinned out bloodline called the "Bushies."

I have always thought that this particular family was bush-league and not up to the job of administrating a modern state like ours.

[Lindsey]

I have always thought that this particular family was bush-league and not up to the job of administrating a modern state like ours.
Bush, Sr. was sometimes wrongheaded and sometimes clueless, but he was not incompetent. Bush, Jr. is all three. "CEO president," indeed. The only way he seems to be able to run things is to run them into the ground.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Bush, Sr. was sometimes wrongheaded and sometimes clueless, but he was not incompetent. Bush, Jr. is all three. "CEO president," indeed. The only way he seems to be able to run things is to run them into the ground.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Wrongheaded? Now that's softpedaling Bush Sr. He ran the Contra side of Iran Contra for Reagan. Having relatives on both sides of that conflict in Nicaragua and a Great Aunt high up in Maryknoll, I've followed that particular little war fairly closely.

[Lindsey]

Wrongheaded? Now that's softpedaling Bush Sr. He ran the Contra side of Iran Contra for Reagan.
Good point; much of the activity around Iran-Contra constituted impeachable offenses as well. And it is, unfortunately, not the only example of pernicious US meddling in Central and South America. (Caribbean, too -- mustn't forget about Haiti.)

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Good point; much of the activity around Iran-Contra constituted impeachable offenses as well. And it is, unfortunately, not the only example of pernicious US meddling in Central and South America. (Caribbean, too -- mustn't forget about Haiti.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

They don't call them Banana Republics for nothin' (thank you United Fruit).

[lensue]

>Banana Republics for nothin' (thank you United Fruit).<

Lindsey, we passed right through some of what was United Fruit country on the Costa Rica trip--I snapped a picture from the fast moving tour bus as we passed tremendous areas of banana plantations:

"Banana cultivation became important after 1878 when Cooper Minor Keith, brought in by President Tomás Guardia to complete the railroad to Limón on the Atlantic coast, planted bananas along the route. This fruit would grow in the tropics, unlike coffee. Keith had been paid partly in land. Growing and shipping bananas provided him and other with income. The railroad was completed by 1890. He eventually joined with others to create what became the United Fruit Company. United Fruit Company plantations dominated the country for much of the 20th century." Regards, Len

[earler]

The usa has never been much involved with haiti and is certainly not responsible for the myriad problems there. The country hasn't had a decent government since it achieved independence from france 200 years ago. What aggravated its problems was the huge debt it had to pay off to france to have that independence. It took haiti at least 60 years to do this.

-er

[earler]

In fact, united fruit's preponderance was lost by the 1960s, though it did remain important. Alas, the company was taken over by a conglomerate and the banana business suffered as a consequence.

The largest banana company today is ecuadorian, by the way. They don't grow all their bananas, but buy many from independent growers. The company's major source for many years was the honduras. Costa rica used to rely almost wholly on bananas for its economy but intel is now the most important business down there today.

The banana business is highly political and the usa has no real influence in it today. As it happens, I know a bit about the business. A cousin of my wife has some bananas in the french antilles and a very good friend of mine grows bananas in ecuador. I also led a team that investigated ports in europe for the handling of bananas when I was a management consultant.

-er

[lensue]

> intel <

Earle, thanks for the info--we passed right by the plant near San Jose. The guide said intel, coffee, pineapples and bananas were big business in Costa Rica. Another very large industry is all kinds of plants--ferns and other exotic plants for flowering arranging. And of course tourism! Regards, Len

[ndebord]

>Banana Republics for nothin' (thank you United Fruit).<

Lindsey, we passed right through some of what was United Fruit country on the Costa Rica trip--I snapped a picture from the fast moving tour bus as we passed tremendous areas of banana plantations:

"Banana cultivation became important after 1878 when Cooper Minor Keith, brought in by President Tomás Guardia to complete the railroad to Limón on the Atlantic coast, planted bananas along the route. This fruit would grow in the tropics, unlike coffee. Keith had been paid partly in land. Growing and shipping bananas provided him and other with income. The railroad was completed by 1890. He eventually joined with others to create what became the United Fruit Company. United Fruit Company plantations dominated the country for much of the 20th century." Regards, Len

Len,

I have a particular soft spot in my heart for United Fruit. If not for them, I would have had a real hard time finishing college! (Let me explain. They ran a full-service telecom outfit to keep track of fruit on all their docks. Sold it off and it became the only teletype outfit outside of Western Union. In the late 70s, I worked an old tty at their shop on lower B'way, doing debit and credit work on 2nd shift. Had to get all that money overseas before the witching hour and since I could type on those big old klunkers faster than the tape could run, I was very well liked. Of course, since it was a United Fruit spinoff, I was working for the Teamsters!)

[Wayne Scott]

The usa has never been much involved with haiti and is certainly not responsible for the myriad problems there. The country hasn't had a decent government since it achieved independence from france 200 years ago. What aggravated its problems was the huge debt it had to pay off to france to have that independence. It took haiti at least 60 years to do this.

-er
Toussaint l'Ouverature really started something, didn't he?

[Wayne Scott]

Bush, Sr. was sometimes wrongheaded and sometimes clueless, but he was not incompetent. Bush, Jr. is all three. "CEO president," indeed. The only way he seems to be able to run things is to run them into the ground.

--Lindsey
Maybe the nicest thing I've ever seen from you about George W.

[Lindsey]

The usa has never been much involved with haiti
Excuse me, I almost choked from laughter when I read that.

Recommended reading: The Rainy Season: Haiti Since Duvalier (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19890901fabook7643/amy-wilentz/the-rainy-season-haiti-since-duvalier.html) by Amy Wilentz.

--Lindsey

[lensue]

>Let me explain<

Nick, thanks, very interesting story. When I worked for Essex County I too was a teamster! Regards, Len [g]

[lensue]

>The usa has never been much involved with haiti <

Earle, I'm surprised to read this statement--I know little about Haiti but is the following incorrect?

Haiti emerged on the world's geo-political center-stage in the 19th century. And the three major events that have fashioned and/or molded the island's national identity are the liberation of Haitians from under the yoke of French bondage in 1791, the attainment of independence through revolution on 1 January 1804 led by former slaves Toussaint L'Ouverture, Henri Christophe and Jean Jacques Dessalines and the pro-longed American occupation from 1915-1934.

http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2004/2110.htm


History of Relations with the United States

"Haiti has been "the sick man of the Caribbean for most of its two hundred years." As such, its history of relations with the United States can best be summed up by desdain, occupation and paternalism. After the successful slave revolution in 1804, the United States did not officially recognize Haiti until 1862 at the height of the American Civil War. However, because of its strategic geographic location, Haiti has always been vital in terms of United States national security concerns. And it is this necessity that precipitated the U.S. military occupation of Haiti. By this invasion, President Woodrow Wilson established and cemented the United States as the sole arbiter of public policy and governance in Haiti. Haiti was thus transformed into a re-colonized, totally dependent American State -- a status it has maintained as of this writing (September 2004)." Regards, Len

[earler]

In the history of haiti the usa hasn't had much involvement until the post papa doc period, and this involvement has been as much for humanitarian reasons as for political ones during the cold war. There are many haitians in the states, as you may know.

This isn't to say that the usa has made the right decisions, but rather than few decisions have been made and the country's situation is and has been hopeless.

-er

[earler]

I had forgotten wilson's intervention, wholly idealistic, as was typical of him. However, I maintain that the usa's involvement there has been mostly unwilling. The country is really hopeless.

-er

[lensue]

>However, I maintain that the usa's involvement there has been mostly unwilling.<

Earle, thanks--when you say unwilling what is it that forces us to be involved. Is it a security matter?

A National Review article gave me some historical perspective and what's more current but I still lack many details.

"A decade ago the Clinton administration, fresh from its fiasco in Somalia, decided to save Haiti at the point of a gun — or, more accurately, the guns of 20,000 American soldiers. Stated Deputy Defense Secretary John Deutch, "we are determined to return democracy to Haiti." White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers similarly explained: "It is time to restore democracy to Haiti." The military leaders fled. President Aristide returned. America's democracy campaign triumphed."

But in 2004:

"Early in February the renamed Gonaives Resistance Front began seizing control of Haitian cities, as other opponents of Aristide, some democrats, some thugs, joined in. The regime collapsed. Naturally, Washington was expected to step into the breach. The Bush administration proposed a power-sharing agreement which would have kept Aristide in power for the remainder of his term, until February 2006. The opposition understandably said "No thanks."...Jesse Jackson, never hesitant to meddle in conflicts not his own, demanded U.S. intervention: "Unless something happens immediately, the president could be killed. We must not allow that to happen to that democracy." But few foreign nations had either any illusion about Haiti being a real democracy or any desire to buttress Aristide's discredited, authoritarian rule. The Bush administration refused to countenance another military invasion to sustain America's one-time symbol of democracy. So Aristide had little choice but to flee. Causing Washington to try again."

The article feels the following should be US policy:

"America now is talking about having an international force protect a government run by Supreme Court Chief Justice Boniface Alexandre while elections are organized. France, Haiti's one-time colonial ruler, has developed an even more complex five-point plan to rescue Haiti. It likely will take more than five points to save the island, but never mind. If France wants to try, it should be encouraged to do so. Washington should stay out, however. The U.S. has no strategic or security interest in Haiti. Economic ties are minimal...At the same time, Washington's military is stretched to the breaking point around the globe... Let other states, like France, provide occupation troops where and when necessary. Few countries have had as tragic an experience as has Haiti. But it is neither America's purpose nor within Washington's power to right every wrong. The U.S. should stop trying to do so." Regards, Len