Was Central America about vanquishing the ghosts of Vietnam?

[Josh]

Just want to get opinions, though feel free to send me links.

The topic is something I had to give a class presentation on a couple of weeks ago. It's from William M. LeoGrande's book "Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America 1977-1992"

He writes;

"In the end, Central America proved not to be another Vietnam, at least not in the way that people feared in 1981 ... the US went to war in Central America to exorcise the ghosts of Vietnam and to renew the national will to use force abroad. These imperatives, more than the Soviet threat, Fidel Castro's menace, nor the Nicaraguan and Salvadoran revolutions shaped US policy - how it was conceived, struggled over, and executed. Central America's misfortune lay in being the stage upon which this American drama was played out."

What do you all think?

[Bridget Burke]

1. Guatamala 1954

US interference in Central America began long before 1977. Not to say that the book is all wrong--it sounds quite interesting & might be enlightening about the later adventures.

[Josh]

2. Basically

it argues that the public was so distressed after Vietnam and believed that America wasn't the great power everyone believed. In order to get the American public okay with the idea of using force overseas again, Reagan's administration exaggerated the communist threat in Central America and then 'dealt with it', knowing that they would always have an easy strategy that would never equate to anything like Vietnam and thus the public would feel better about it, because after having been built up as another 'possible Vietnam', it wouldn't/didn't turn out that way.

Quite interesting indeed.

[Josh]

3. Kick -

Surely people have an opinion on this. I wasn't around when it happened, but I'm sure many of you were. What did everyone think about military involvement in Grenada et al?

[Punkingal]

4. With regard to Grenada.....

Tip O'Neill said in his book, Man of the House, that Raygun invaded Grenada to distract from the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. I think he was correct about that.

[DUreader]

5. Most people who were around seem to have no realization of

the extent of US military involvement in C.A.

[JHB]

6. 1977-1992 Central America was a return to business as usual...

...vanquishing the late-60s/early-70s movements favoring popular insurgents over existing oligarchies and dictatorships.

A good quick summary can be found at http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page74.html :
Theodore Roosevelt's ascension to the presidency led to a more interventionist U.S. approach throughout the Caribbean. Roosevelt derisively referred to Latin Americans as "dagoes" and believed they were incapable of governing themselves. In 1903 the U.S. helped Panama break away from Colombia and begin the process which would lead to the building, by the U.S., of the Panama Canal. Roosevelt called for the use of a "Big Stick" to insure a climate in the region congenial to American business operations.

In 1905, President Roosevelt promulgated the so-called "Roosevelt Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, authorizing U.S. military intervention in the affairs of the nations of the Caribbean Basin to suppress revolutions which might threaten the stability of the region or the ability of the country in question to meet its international financial obligations. < IE pages 38-39>

Diplomatic historian Walter LaFeber has pointed out that the Roosevelt Corollary turned the Monroe Doctrine on its head. The Monroe Doctrine was designed to prevent foreign interference in the revolutions of Latin America. The Roosevelt Corollary authorized outside intervention, so long as it was intervention by the United States! According to LaFeber "To argue...that the United States intervened in Central America simply to stop revolutions and bestow the blessings of stability tells too little too simply. The motive for Washington's policy in Central America was not to stop upheavals, but to promote U.S. interests. In El Salvador, for example, North Americans-both in the business and the diplomatic community-continually encouraged a revolutionary faction between 1906 and 1913 because they knew the faction was more pro-United States...than the actual, legitimate government. " Over the next thirty years, under the guise of "gunboat diplomacy", "dollar diplomacy", and Wilsonian Progressivism the United States would intervene militarily and diplomatically again and again to install allies into power and to quell revolts.

Augusto Sandino's Nicaraguan revolt in the 1920s marked a serious challenge to U.S. policy. Sandino aroused the poor of his country to confront an elite backed by the U.S. When the U.S.-supported regime appeared on the verge of collapse, American marines were rushed in. The Americans helped create a politicized military which would rule Nicaragua for half a century.

By the 1950's Central & South America were filled with countries run by "our son of a bitch" (Franklin Roosevelt's famous phrase regarding Nicaraguan dictator Somoza {father of the one who was overthown in 1979}). That changed slightly with the revolutionary movemets by Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and others. One could also argue that the poicies of 77-92 were what they were because our involvement in Vietnam precluded armed intervention in Central America in the early 70's.

The 1977-1992 policies can be dressed up as reactions to Vietnam and anti-communism, but its real roots go back over a century. Hell, you can go all the way back to William Walker (http://www.calnative.com/stories/n_walk.htm), before the Civil War.

[IrateCitizen]

7. ALL of them are about the "rotten apple" syndrome

As you go through the annals of history and US intervention -- be it overt military intervention, as in Vietnam, or covert support, as in most CA incursions over the past 50 years -- the overriding principle is the same: you can't allow one rotten apple to ruin the whole barrel.

What do I mean by that? You can't allow any one nation, no matter how small, to follow a path of self-determination that is detrimental to the interests of international capital. Because if Vietnam, or Nicaragua, or Guatemala, or anyone else can follow their own path and choose their own destiny at the expense of the rule of international capital, then that means that other exploited peoples may look at their example and start getting ideas that they can do the same. That kind of scenario -- the REAL "domino theory" that was behind our involvement in SE Asia -- is what strikes true fear into the hearts of international capital and their seats of power, ruled by market fundamentalists.

With regards to Vietnam, many people look at that as a "loss" for the powers of neocolonialism. I would disagree. There were somewhere between 2 and 3 million Vietnamese killed in the conflict. The infrastructure of the country was ravaged. The message was very clear, that even though the Vietnamese had finally won their independence from colonial masters, it had come at a tremendous cost -- and anyone out there considering their push for independence had better take note.

In the end, it's all about the maintenance and perpetuation of power. And if you dig deep enough, you can never cease to be amazed by the absolute barbarity and complete moral depravity that some human beings will readily embrace in pursuit of this twisted ideal.

[adriennel]

8. testing!

The United States has felt "responsible", off and on as it suits them, for the condition of the countries south since the Monroe Doctrine. The Soviet threat in Central American was probably 90% bogus (OK, they did trade with Cuba). I wrote a paper on this for my senior history seminar. IMHO, this is a part of the world that the United States government is not all that concerned with. I believe the events in Central America under BushI were definately a pratice run for 1991 & even 2001/2 initiatives in the Middle East. Watch the "Panama Deception".
In the past year, Venezuela and Bolivia have experienced major political upheaval, Columbia is still one of the most dangerous places on earth, and unless you're specifically looking for news on these countries, it goes unnoticed by a majority of Americans. We hear a lot about our successes and their failures in the drug war. That's about it.