America's Terrorist Training Camp

November 1, 2001 5:59 AM

America's Terrorist Training Camp George Monbiot asks, in the Guardian, "what's the difference between Al Qaeda and Fort Benning?" Well, is there a difference? Away you go, kids...
posted by rikabel (95 comments total)

when someone pulls a newspaper clipping out of his pocket, invites me to read it, and then tells me to argue its merits, I feel like a dancing bear.

That's what I think. What do YOU think? Away you go!
posted by luser at 6:17 AM on November 1, 2001

Monbiot: "Alternatively, we could demand that our governments attack the United States, bombing its military installations, cities and airports in the hope of overthrowing its unelected government and replacing it with a new administration overseen by the UN . . . You object that this prescription is ridiculous, and I agree. But, try as I might, I cannot see the moral difference between this course of action and the war now being waged in Afghanistan. "

Me: Try as I might, I can't see the difference either. Well, except for the fact that al Qaeda's stated (and apparently only) mission is to kill as many Americans as possible, whenever and wherever it finds them. But that's such a minor technicality.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:39 AM on November 1, 2001

I'm guessing luser didn't bother reading the link.
posted by lia at 6:45 AM on November 1, 2001

You know reading gives you a learning disease. It's called knowledge.
posted by trioperative at 6:47 AM on November 1, 2001

rikabel:

Don't call me a fucking kid.

You condescending asshole.

I would have loved to enter a debate on this topic, but the original post was so off-putting in its wording that I could only muster the above heartfelt sentiment.
posted by dfowler at 6:54 AM on November 1, 2001

Lia, I absolutely read the link. I'll go you one further before this thread gets deleted -- I don't think rikabel read the link. If he did, he apparently couldn't be bothered to express an opinion about it. Yet we are commanded to discuss. I just find that irritating.

dfowler -- chill
posted by luser at 6:58 AM on November 1, 2001

'pardonyou' ... so as long as it's not American's you kill it's ok?

On the flip side of the coin, many foreign nationals, from 'questionable nation states', have also long been trained in English military colleges. I think most countries would be hard pressed to say they had a completely clean record.
posted by MintSauce at 7:03 AM on November 1, 2001

luser, first of all I agree with the chill dfowler, but in any case it should be his/her highly offensive post that gets dumped. The word kids has been used here loads of times, it's like saying fellow mefis. As for the front page post, I don't think opinions are supposed to be there. If you have to post an opinion along with the link the front page will be unusable. If this post gets deleted it will be because this web is basically American and all us non-Americans have to thread/tread carefully.
posted by Zootoon at 7:22 AM on November 1, 2001

Are these sort of links where one goes out and finds the most absurd, inflammatory "articles" available in a deliberate attempt to spark heated, fruitless debate really worth anyone's time?
posted by ljromanoff at 7:32 AM on November 1, 2001

Old school: The US doesn't resort to dirty tricks (globally) and is ashamed when cuaght doing so

New paradygm: We do what we need to do to advance our interests just like every other country in the world...

The sooner we stop getting held to polyanna rules, the better. (But not domestically of course)

And any journalist who tries to make investigative hay out of reporting on same should be tar & feathered
posted by BentPenguin at 7:37 AM on November 1, 2001

I didn't really find it that inflammatory. Just because it sparks discussion and makes someone pissed off, that doesn't make the linker a troll.
posted by trioperative at 7:37 AM on November 1, 2001

No MintSauce, read my post. Mr. Monbiot made the claim that he could see no moral difference between the policies of al Qaeda and the United States. I'm not saying the U.S. is beyond reproach, but I think it's the height of absurdity to argue that there's no difference between the U.S. and al Qaeda.

The great E.B. White (following William Strunk) wrote: "Do not overstate. When you overstate, the reader will be instantly on guard, and everything that has preceded your overstatement as well as everything that follows it will be suspect in his mind because he has lost confidence in your judgment or your poise." Monbiot overstated, and (to me at least) irreparably damaged his argument.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:39 AM on November 1, 2001

monbiot has a point. There is an analogy between the SOA and bin laden's training camps. i've participated in several anti-SOA actions myself since 1996.

but that's all it is. a point. it doesn't make the "prescription" of removing the taliban and taking out al queda "ridiculous." there are numerous reasons that this terrible war must be fought, not the least of which is simple self-defense. how many times does bin laden have to publically call for the death of me and my countrymen and then back up the proclaimation with murderous action up before the world understands we didn't start this?

lia, what makes you say luser didn't read the article? when i saw yr comment i thought i missed something in the article that used language like rikabel's 'away you go,' but i still can't find it. i'm guessing your just picking a fight as usual.
posted by danOstuporStar at 7:41 AM on November 1, 2001

danOstuporStar,

Agreed. As part of its "war on terrorism," the U.S. should adopt a policy whereby WE DO NOT TRAIN, ARM, OR SUPPORT TERRORISTS. Period.

Every time we train and arm one of these fuckers, they come back to bite us on the ass. Think Central America.
posted by preguicoso at 8:00 AM on November 1, 2001

THANK GOD WE'RE BACK TO MINDLESS POLITICS!

I don't know if I could stand another day without petty rants and cheap ad-hominems. I mean, geez, one lousy Halloween and everyone is ready to betray the True Spirit of Metafilter in favor of sweet sweet candy and interesting links.

Thank you Jesus.
posted by aramaic at 8:05 AM on November 1, 2001

Ask me how many terrorists get trained at Fort Bragg.....

You do know we train quite a few foreign nationals in our country....when I was in Pensacola a lot of Saudi nationals were getting flight training.....

and I do know for a fact that a lot of foreign nationals are getting top of the line training here at Bragg....already one in particular turned out to be a terrorist..

causes one furiously to think.
posted by bunnyfire at 8:06 AM on November 1, 2001

I am bothered less by the fact that the US does this than I am by the lack of disclosure about the activities there, the intent of the activities, and the people (and their nationalities) involved.

It really pisses me off that the government treats us like kids and acts as if it is trying to protect us from the truth.

Yes, the polyanna complex.
posted by yesster at 8:25 AM on November 1, 2001

The argument that the U.S. has done bad things in the past is facile, and pretty much irrelevant to the military action in Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan action comes down to this: people who live there are trying to kill us, so we will go and kill them.

Call it what you want -- war on terrorism, war on evil, etc., but it really just about killing people who want to kill us.

It is hard to see where our alleged past misdeeds fit in there. It makes our action less moral? So what? Killing people who want to kill you is not, and never was, a moral objective.
posted by Mid at 8:32 AM on November 1, 2001

ooer, oops. First off, Dfowler, I am sorry if you thought I was using 'kids' in a condescending fashion, that was not the manner in which it was intended, more like 'fellow mefi users' as zootoon surmises.

And maybe I should have stated my own impression of the article on the home page (which, yes, I have read), an omission which I will rectify here. I am not trying to troll, rather I was genuinely interested as a Brit in what the (majority American) audience of mefi would make of Monbiot's argument, which after all was printed in a (respected) national newspaper in the UK.

While I think it is indeed ludicrous to state that there is *no* moral difference between the US government and al Qaeda (the US has never exhorted all it's citizens to kill as many Arabs as possible, for example) the fact that the US does sponsor, arm and train terrorist regimes (including several bazillion dollars of arms for the Taliban, back when they were brave freedom fighters resisting the soviet scourge...) seems to have been overlooked in the quest to vanquish terror and/or evil from our world. (And the UK is of course by no means innocent in these matters, supplying arms, jet fighters etc to anyone who wants them, and standing 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US).

I think Monbiot is right to point out the glaring double standards at work here.

Sorry, I want to write more and think more, but work has intervened...
posted by rikabel at 8:48 AM on November 1, 2001

"including several bazillion dollars of arms for the Taliban"

Could we just kill this meme? I keep reading it. The Taliban did not exist during the soviet invasion. This has been refuted ad infinitum on MeFi. If you say things like this it undermines everything else you are going to say.
posted by phatboy at 9:02 AM on November 1, 2001

Differences? Geographic location, physical landscape, language, cuisine, primary religion, clothing styles...
posted by mmarcos at 9:13 AM on November 1, 2001

MeFi is starting to look a lot like this.
posted by swift at 9:19 AM on November 1, 2001

Why do people get so annoyed by political threads like this?

If you read that link then it seems to me that you could have one of two basic reactions - deny it is true or wonder what you can do to stop the hypocrisy. So is it that people think it's simply false? Or do feel powerless and frustrated?

Or don't they bother to follow the link at all and just don't like other people feeling striongly about something they can't be bothered to read?

Of all those, feeling powerless and frustrated seems to be the one worth adressing - what can people do?
posted by andrew cooke at 9:28 AM on November 1, 2001

The Taliban did not exist during the soviet invasion.

Phatboy, I think rikabel was referring to the fact that the US government financed the mujahideen during the war with the Soviet Union. Many of these same mujahideen later coalesced to form what is now known as the Taliban. A slight misstatement, but I think it is a far cry from "undermining" everything else he says.
posted by mapalm at 9:34 AM on November 1, 2001

Yet another load of crap from The Guardian. Why Brits bother reading that worthless rag I don't know (for the same reason Americans keep reading the Village Voice, I suppose).

I'd like to rant at length on this topic, but a perusal of lots of previous threads on the Current Situation will make my stand clear. There's nothing more to be gained by disproving the "facts" in this stupid piece of shit.

If you haven't read it yet, don't bother.
posted by mrmanley at 9:41 AM on November 1, 2001

Are these sort of links where one goes out and finds the most absurd, inflammatory "articles" available in a deliberate attempt to spark heated, fruitless debate really worth anyone's time?

Not much, in my estimation. I'd rather see an article that attempts to present new information, rather than just another inflammatory opinion from a writer I've never heard of.

However, I do enjoy reading political articles that are contrary to what you might expect from the writer. For example -- liberal hawks and conservative doves.

Many of these same mujahideen later coalesced to form what is now known as the Taliban. A slight misstatement, but I think it is a far cry from "undermining" everything else he says.

And other mujahadin became the Northern Alliance and every other faction with any power in the country. Claiming that the Taliban was the group supported by the U.S. during the country's revolution against the Soviet-backed government is pretty clueless.
posted by rcade at 9:46 AM on November 1, 2001

Yet another load of crap from The Guardian. Why Brits bother reading that worthless rag I don't know.

A sure sign that your own reply is worthless.

If you haven't read it yet, don't bother.

If only we had that luxury with such content-free replies.

Actually, I prefer this piece by Niall Ferguson, a tutor at my college and a pillar of the academic right. Which you won't read, of course. Ferguson's comparison of Bin Laden to the Mahdi is also new and insightful.

(rcade: this is one you'll appreciate, precisely because the Guardian printed it.)

There is no excuse for the relative weakness of the US as a quasi-imperial power. The transition to formal empire from informal empire is an affordable one. But it does not come very naturally to the US - partly because of its history and partly because of Vietnam - to act as a self-confident imperial power. The US has the resources: but does it have the guts to act as a global hegemon and make the world a more stable place?

Better that than the long history of dirty wars and the resultant blowback.
posted by holgate at 9:51 AM on November 1, 2001

Claiming that the Taliban was the group supported by the U.S. during the country's revolution against the Soviet-backed government is pretty clueless.

Who said that? I love how words get put into people's mouths. The fact is that the US gave huge financial support to the mujahideen during the war, not caring who they were or what they did, as long as they fought the 'evil Soviet empire.' Now, those chickens are coming home to roost. Anyone who refutes that is clueless, rcade.
posted by mapalm at 9:53 AM on November 1, 2001

Thanks, Holgate.

Who said that?

Rikabel did:

... the US does sponsor, arm and train terrorist regimes (including several bazillion dollars of arms for the Taliban, back when they were brave freedom fighters resisting the soviet scourge...) ...

People make the error all the time, usually in service of a "the U.S. created this monster" argument. I think it's a bit of a stretch myself, though there is no doubt that the U.S. creates new monsters all the time in the pursuit of realpolitik. We'll probably end up creating a new one by letting the Northern Alliance take over as much of Afghanistan as they can hold onto.
posted by rcade at 10:05 AM on November 1, 2001

The fact is that the US gave huge financial support to the mujahideen during the war, not caring who they were or what they did, as long as they fought the 'evil Soviet empire.' Now, those chickens are coming home to roost. Anyone who refutes that is clueless, rcade.

That is such a silly argument it's barely worth a response, however, I will respond anyway.

Tell me, were the 'chickens coming home to roost' when the Conferdate Army attacked Fort Sumter in 1861? All those men were trained by the United States as well. There are unforseen circumstances to everything. Supporting a group attempting to expel Soviet occupiers in the 1980's was the correct thing to do at the time. Part of that group became the Taliban, most of them did not. There is not a rigid straight line of development that starts with the mujahideen rebellion 20 years ago and ends with the September 11th attack, despite your suggestion that there is.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:08 AM on November 1, 2001

mapalm:

During the soviet invasion of the 1980's, the US *did* give arms, money, and support to the mujahedeen...but so did Pakistan (via the ISI), Saudi Arabia, Iran, and a host of smaller countries. Pakistan's contribution to this whole fiasco is huge (larger than the US's), and yet I don't see fanatics flying loaded 767 Jumbo Jets into buildings in Karachi.

Many of us argue that the means we used to defeat the Soviet Union during the Cold War were products of their time. The US certainly wasn't alone in using subterfuge, double-dealing, and gun-running to further national aims. It's not a pleasant thing, but the world is often an unpleasant place. We do what we must to protect ourselves and our allies from enemies who wish us harm.

Arguments that say that 5,000 of my countrymen were murdered because they "had it coming" or "were asking for it" absolutely enrage me. It shows an astounding shallowness of understanding of the US's role in world affairs to make such a statement. I don't want to insult you, mapalm, but the stuff you just said make me want to use words like insensitive asshole and clueless political naif.
posted by mrmanley at 10:10 AM on November 1, 2001

The US has the resources: but does it have the guts to act as a global hegemon and make the world a more stable place

Holgate, do you really believe that such a course of action would not entail "dirty wars" and "blowback" by those who the US would impose itself upon?
posted by edlark at 10:11 AM on November 1, 2001

mrmanley...I was listening for a while there...then you kinda lost me with the personal attacks. You want to live in a world in which the US rules with an iron fist, unconcerned with the rights and interests of the vast majority of the world's population?...fine. But keep your venom in check, you're making a fool of yourself.
posted by mapalm at 10:19 AM on November 1, 2001

It's the "toss the scrap to the dogs and watch them fight over it" attitude that got me, rikabel. That combined with the word "kids" seemed (and still seems) pretty condescending.

Fact is, one of my coworkers pissed in my coffee this morning (real funny, McGraw) and I was still in a fit of swearing when I logged on.

Anyone want to get on my case now?
posted by dfowler at 10:19 AM on November 1, 2001

5,000 of my countrymen were murdered because they "had it coming" or "were asking for it"

Has anyone ever said this on this forum? I don't think so. While I may not agree with Mapalm, what enrages me is when people do not accept precisely the point you seem to be making without understanding it yourself: that past global policies are at least one component of the Current Situation.
posted by cell divide at 10:23 AM on November 1, 2001

ljromanoff - my point was that the US has a long history of financing and supporting insurgencies all over the world (often against democratically elected countries), with no strategy in mind other than making the world safe for American business. If the the US is truly interested in "protecting freedom and democracy," it will put it's money where it's mouth is and start pursuing policies that reflect this. I believe it's not as simple as "they attacked us and now they must die."
posted by mapalm at 10:26 AM on November 1, 2001

its, its
posted by mapalm at 10:28 AM on November 1, 2001

It really depends on how it's handled, edlark. When British Marines and Royal Engineers arrived in Sierra Leone alongside a collective West African and UN peace corps, there were demonstrations asking for a return to rule from London, because it offered a practical alternative to the gang rule into which the country had descended. This didn't happen, of course, but better the current vaguely "imperialistic" solution based upon mutual benefit, than a new Somalia.

You know my political leanings: imperialism has a lot to answer for, and even contemplating it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. But it's inescapable: what's usually described as "globalisation" is a corporate proto-imperialism like that of the early 18th century, which eventually became the state imperialism which peaked in the 19th. Empire is always there, and Ferguson's point is that more problems come when you try to deny its existence. Dirty covert wars and wars by proxy have done little to bring peace or stablity; actions done explicitly, within international frameworks and mindful of the regimes being supported, appear to be at least a little less disastrous.
posted by holgate at 10:30 AM on November 1, 2001

"it's" is a contraction of "it is" while "its" is the possesive of it. you had it right the first time.

anyway, maybe preguicoso had it right. Think Central America. perhaps to calmly discuss the SOA, we need to take the Current Situation out of the picture because it very easy for me (and others like me who generally are critical of US foreign policy) to take those criticisms as 'amerika deserved it' when discussed in relation to 9.11.
posted by danOstuporStar at 10:36 AM on November 1, 2001

dan, i was referring to this line I wrote:

it will put it's money where it's mouth is

I know my English, but thanks anyway.
posted by mapalm at 10:39 AM on November 1, 2001

yeah dfowler...your response was wildly inappropriate, piss in your coffee or not. You explained why but didn't even bother to apologize for being such an asshole. Rikabel didn't piss in your coffee, he merely used an innocuous term of endearment in his post.

In fact, your response was so childish I hasten to wonder if Rikabel's term wasn't appropriate in your case. Maybe you need to take your issues and go home for the rest of the day.
posted by xochi at 10:40 AM on November 1, 2001

ljromanoff - my point was that the US has a long history of financing and supporting insurgencies all over the world

That's certainly true.

(often against democratically elected countries)

Extremely debatable.

with no strategy in mind other than making the world safe for American business.

What American business interests were served in attempting to ensure that another nation did not fall under the Soviet sphere of influence and provide the Red Navy with more warm water ports? Afghanistan is hardly Cuba. It's not like there were a great deal of American business interests there, or that any developed after the Soviets left. Geopolitics are more complicated than U.S. troops shuffling around the world to protect the bottom line for IBM and Coca-Cola.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:41 AM on November 1, 2001

yet another load of crap ... stupid piece of shit

Feeling fecal?
posted by walrus at 10:56 AM on November 1, 2001

ljromanoff

(often against democratically elected countries)

Extremely debatable.

Guatemala 1956 and Chile 1973 for starters.

As far as geo-politics, I don't suggest that Afghanistan is of particular economic interest to the US; rather, US involvement there was in response to stemming the advance of Soviet influence. Reagan, et al., would say they wanted to stem the tide to defend "freedom;" I would argue they wanted to stem the tide to defend against further encroachments against regimes that are friendly to US business. Same result, different motivation.
posted by mapalm at 11:10 AM on November 1, 2001

Arguments that say that 5,000 of my countrymen were murdered ...

Nit: The victims of Sept. 11 were not all Americans. And while we're on the subject, the official AP total of the dead and missing is 4,685.
posted by rcade at 11:19 AM on November 1, 2001

Empire is always there, and Ferguson's point is that more problems come when you try to deny its existence.

Interesting. The U.S. has undeniably built a sort of economic empire, using the size of its market (esp. given the strength of the U.S. dollar) and the strength of its industries to establish itself as a global economic and political leader. But I don't know that it necessarily follows from this that there is a U.S. empire in the relevant sense. I mean, threatening to raise tariffs and other barriers to trade differs substantially from protecting spice merchants with an army, right? (I always thought the term "economic empire" was more metaphorical than anything, I guess.)

Obviously whatever military activity is necessary to prevent terrorist groups and nations, is necessary. But in the long term the best way to ensure stability throughout the globe might be to increase every nation's reliance on international trade, thereby increasing the (relative) costs of investing too heavily in their militaries, and dramatically increasing the real costs of waging war.
posted by mattpfeff at 11:31 AM on November 1, 2001

Guatemala 1956 and Chile 1973 for starters

I went to research this, so I could argue the point. Then I learned something. Dammit.

Still, this is only for starters.... can you point us to a listing of the American Economic Empire's agression? I'm sure there is a site out there somewhere that isn't radical, but historical in nature.
posted by dwivian at 11:40 AM on November 1, 2001

Guatemala 1956 and Chile 1973

I'll give you Guatemala, but one example is not "often". Chile is extremely more complicated as the legitamacy of the Allende government is pretty questionable. Not to mention the fact that Chile was descending into chaos pretty rapidly without any U.S. involvement.

As far as geo-politics, I don't suggest that Afghanistan is of particular economic interest to the US; rather, US involvement there was in response to stemming the advance of Soviet influence. Reagan, et al., would say they wanted to stem the tide to defend "freedom;" I would argue they wanted to stem the tide to defend against further encroachments against regimes that are friendly to US business. Same result, different motivation.

And you base that argument on what, exactly? U.S. business had dealings with both the USSR and Communist China for a long time before the US government began supporting efforts to remove the Soviets from Afghanistan. If business interests are the sole motivation for government action, one might think that the US would prefer that the Soviets annex Afghanistan outright. In that situation, US businesses would have the opportunity to work with a government with which they already have business relationships.

Futhermore, it would have been more advantageous for the Afghan region to be stable so that US businesses could establish a presence in the country without the risk of their factories or other installations being damaged in battle. If you truly believe there was some hidden agenda in the attempts to stem the tide of Communist expansion, please provide some evidence. Do you believe there was a hidden agenda in the defeat of other anti-freedom regimes (i.e., Nazi Germany) as well?
posted by ljromanoff at 11:41 AM on November 1, 2001

,Phatboy, I think rikabel was referring to the fact that the US government financed the mujahideen during the war with the Soviet Union. Many of these same mujahideen later coalesced to form what is now known as the Taliban.

Let's get the facts even straighter. The Taliban was formed in Pakistan out of religious schools. They were not mujahideen and did not fight the Soviets (look at their faces on TV -- they are too young for one thing). While it is true some mujahideen on the right supported The Taliban when they swept into power in 1996, many didn't, and still don't.
posted by dydecker at 12:04 PM on November 1, 2001

Chile is extremely more complicated as the legitamacy

Allende got a bigger majority than Bush.

And the USA was involved before the election - about half a million US dollars covert funding was approved for a CIA propoganda campaign. So it's also incorrect to paint the N. Americans as becoming involved in a crisis that they had no part in.

Finally, even if the country was in turmoil, what right has the USA to support a military coup there? It's not your job to go round poking your finger into everyone else's pies...
posted by andrew cooke at 12:38 PM on November 1, 2001

ljrpmanof: The list of "interventions" is way, way ,way to long to post here, but here's a link.

Also, I am Chilean. Please don't presume to tell me that the thousands of dead, tortured, exiled, mutilated, blinded, beaten and raped where somehow "neccesary". It's as sick as if I made a similar comment about 9-11.
posted by signal at 12:53 PM on November 1, 2001

And all the while a raging debate is going on in MetaTalk...
Best of both worlds, if you ask me! :-)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:04 PM on November 1, 2001

Allende got a bigger majority than Bush.

Allende did not get a majority at all, which is why his holding office is somewhat dubious. Chilean law required a majority.

And the USA was involved before the election - about half a million US dollars covert funding was approved for a CIA propoganda campaign. So it's also incorrect to paint the N. Americans as becoming involved in a crisis that they had no part in.

I do not debate that there was American involvement. I debate the suggestion that the Pinochet coup was orchestrated by the U.S.

Finally, even if the country was in turmoil, what right has the USA to support a military coup there?

Again, the military coup would have happened without any U.S. involvement. The Allende government essentially ruined the Chilean economy and there was constant rioting and warfare in the streets in 1973.

Also, I am Chilean. Please don't presume to tell me that the thousands of dead, tortured, exiled, mutilated, blinded, beaten and raped where somehow "neccesary".

I think "inevitable" would be a more accurate adjective than "necessary". Chile was self-destructing in 1973.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:14 PM on November 1, 2001

Again, the military coup would have happened without any U.S. involvement. The Allende government essentially ruined the Chilean economy and there was constant rioting and warfare in the streets in 1973.

Wow. Where do you *get* this stuff? You sound like a CIA operative. Please, read the history, do some research, or at the very least, listen to people (like signal) who are actually from these places, for crying out loud.
posted by mapalm at 1:50 PM on November 1, 2001

Again, the military coup would have happened without any U.S. involvement.

That's a matter of conjecture. US involvement is not.

Chile was self-destructing in 1973.

"Self-destruction" in a climate of external destabilisation? I assume you'll argue that Afghanistan was self-destructing in 2001, if the Taliban falls after US bombardment.

How come it's only the American right which persists with disinformation about the Allende regime? War guilt?
posted by holgate at 1:52 PM on November 1, 2001

Maybe so. This is why I can't be on the right. Can't be on the left, either. Guess I'll have to take the middle of the road, which is higher, and easier to throw rocks at. Oh, joy.
posted by dwivian at 1:59 PM on November 1, 2001

Wow. Where do you *get* this stuff? You sound like a CIA operative. Please, read the history, do some research, or at the very least, listen to people (like signal) who are actually from these places, for crying out loud.

Coming from someone who's convinced that behind every American action is a U.S. corporation looking for another dollar, I'll take your comments for what they are worth: not much.

"Self-destruction" in a climate of external destabilisation?

Destabilization in the form of the U.S. blocking further investment? After Allende nationalized the Gran Mineria copper companies (worth over $650 million) and only provided $30 million in compensation to the owners of the company, I doubt Allende could really have assumed much more investment would be flowing into his country. Acts like that are the sort of thing that destroys an economy extremely quickly.

How come it's only the American right which persists with disinformation about the Allende regime?

So far, the disinformation here has been coming from the left. Feel free to contribute some if you like, Nick. After all, you are quite skilled at it.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:10 PM on November 1, 2001

I note that you avoid confronting your persistent inability to separate speculation upon conjecture from the legacy ofactual events. After all, if you base your hypothetical conclusions on hypothetical premises, how can we call you on it? After all, in Lance's Fantasy Libertarian History, Lance gets to choose what happens.

That the CIA had long-running covert operations against Allende is beyond question. In that context, to argue that Chile's fate was an inevitable "self-destruction" dispenses with logic. If I shoot someone, am I allowed to defend myself on the premise that he would have shot himself eventually?

So far, the disinformation here has been coming from the left.

Including signal? Or are all Chileans who don't celebrate Pinochet's reign of terror simply craven leftist peddlers of disinformation?

Feel free to contribute some if you like, Nick. After all, you are quite skilled at it.

No, Lance, that's your job, whenever you take a break from being MeFi's school bully. Although you seem to combine the tasks with the ease of a natural.
posted by holgate at 2:46 PM on November 1, 2001

Coming from someone who's convinced that behind every American action is a U.S. corporation looking for another dollar, I'll take your comments for what they are worth: not much.

Never said that, ljromanoff. Nonetheless, to not recognize the vast influence of corporate interests upon US foreign policy is to betray a certain ignorance of basic history. Or, perhaps, merely betraying certain pro-establishment sympathies.
posted by mapalm at 3:30 PM on November 1, 2001

Oh, and here's some leftist disinformation for you.

From your link:

"CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende’s government on 11 September 1973.
[...]
Although some of these residual propaganda operations may have benefited Pinochet and the putchists indirectly, officers of the CIA and the Intelligence Community were not involved in facilitating Pinochet’s accession to President nor the consolidation of his power as Supreme Leader. For most of the period, CIA had no covert action authority for Chile. While the CIA had liaison relationships with various security services over the years, there is no indication that any service asked for, or that the CIA offered, any assistance to promote Pinochet to the Presidency."


Nice try though, Nick. One of these days you'll stumble into the truth. Hope it doesn't hurt too much when it happens.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:10 PM on November 1, 2001

Actually, ljromanof, there is considerable evidence (much of it in the Comision Rettig report, which I'm sure you've read, and the investigations of Operation Condor) linking the US to repression in Chile. And everybody knows who paid off the truckers to strike, thus causing the supply crisis and setting off the demonstrations against Allende.

Also, I don't think that CIA PR is a very impartial place to look for evidence that the CIA wasn't involved, hmmmm?
posted by signal at 7:00 PM on November 1, 2001

And everybody knows who paid off the truckers to strike, thus causing the supply crisis and setting off the demonstrations against Allende.

Everyone also knows who nationalized Chilean industries without compensating the owners and instituting massive wage increases without having the economic growth or government financial reserves to pay for them, thus instituting hyper-inflation and tanking the Chilean economy.

Also, I don't think that CIA PR is a very impartial place to look for evidence that the CIA wasn't involved, hmmmm?

Well, I didn't link to it or use it as source material for that very reason, but if Nick wants to bring it up, I feel obligated to point out what it actually says.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:31 PM on November 1, 2001

sorry lj, but BIG SAM fucked up in Chile. The company wanted him out no matter the results he was getting. This is a great discussion. Few can out hawk me. I have no qualms with old SOA training.(the son of cambodian leader graduated from West Pointe. given the KRs past rep and the hatred that we had of the vietnamese puppet regime, seems nothing has changed. wink-wink) I have no qualms with secret wars. I do have qualms about people who blame the company for all the problems, as if they were some sort of first-mover. If historical inevitability is the contention, it should. In 1918, U.S. solders (mostly michigan boys) were sent into Archangel to set up a front against germany. wound up fighting bolsheviks. America has been involved in secret wars since her birth. lj, im with you on alot of this but not Chile(of course i have no proof that we wanted him out) Pinochet reversed to many policies that Allende set up.
posted by clavdivs at 8:03 PM on November 1, 2001

lj, im with you on alot of this but not Chile(of course i have no proof that we wanted him out) Pinochet reversed to many policies that Allende set up.

I don't think there's any doubt that the U.S. wanted Allende out of office. I dispute the characterization of the Chilean coup in 1973 as "CIA orchestrated," however. There was more than enough geniune domestic unrest in Chile as a result of Allende's policies at the time to account for what happened there, and very little evidence to suggest that the CIA was anything other than a bit player. Not to mention the fact that Allende was not a legitimate officeholder, anyway.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:08 PM on November 1, 2001

5,000 of my countrymen

Untrue. There were an almost equal amount of American victims as international visitor victims (~2,300 each).
posted by Neale at 9:07 PM on November 1, 2001

Not to mention the fact that Allende was not a legitimate officeholder, anyway.

I didn't realize you guys were such sticklers for the legitimacy of your leaders. (sorry, I know, a snide-swipe.)
posted by chrismc at 10:32 PM on November 1, 2001

'Yeah but see it duzint matter 'cause it woulda happint anyhow.'

If The Company injects itself, without noticeable effect, into the foreordained, their only measurable achievement will be to provision cranky parts of the world with a convenient, high-profile villain - a villain with high-rise targets. One would think that those who seek to excuse the CIA by arguing its inconsequence would be among the first to recommend a clear-eyed appraisal of The Company's function. So how come the people most adroit at establishing the CIA's exonerative impotence are often the same people who want to extend their 'mission' and engorge their budget?

Duplicity, duplicity,
pay for one, get one free?
posted by Opus Dark at 1:29 AM on November 2, 2001

A little interval, not quite good enough for the front page, but still worth posting:

Fort Benning/Al Qaeda, that's easy: at least some of you guys you can obviously tell them apart. But international terrorists and computer programmers? That's a whole lot tougher. Can you tell them apart? I couldn't. Test your detection powers with the FBI Agent Screening Exam.

(Flash game from the ever-funny folks at National Lampoon)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:48 AM on November 2, 2001

you, dammit.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:03 AM on November 2, 2001

lj:I dispute the characterization of the Chilean coup in 1973 as "CIA orchestrated,"

Funny, I did a search of this page and "CIA orchestrated" doesn't appear until you said it there. Who are you quoting here? The voices in your head?
posted by boaz at 6:00 AM on November 2, 2001

Otherwise, we're back in Fantasy Lance Land

The only fantasy land around here is the one you visit on a regular basis to collect your "facts."

Because you're not going to bully me out of this one

Feeling bullied, Nick? Maybe that's because your arguments have the strength of the proverbial 98-pound weakling.

Facts of "genuine domestic unrest", ljr? Please to be providing.

Allende hoped to buy popularity for his Unidad Popular coalition with a general 40%- 70% pay increase for UP's working-class and poor constituencies. Supposedly, this would not cause an explosion of inflation, because there were plenty of unsold goods and productive capacity, money to pay for it could be had by expropriating unpopular large companies and foreigners, taxes could be raised on the classes who supported UP's opposition, and price freezes could be enforced by local activists.

For the first year 1970-71, price freezes covered the inflationary effects of huge unfunded pay increases, but, inevitably, in succeeding years the economy was marked by increasing shortages, lines, and dependence on black markets.

Plus, there were numerous strikes and lockouts, not necessarily for economic purposes.

The largest single strike/lockout campaign was in Oct 1972. Originally it was called by a truck-owners' association in Punta Arenas, whose contract had been cancelled by a newly nationalized factory; the new management intended to build their own socialist truck fleet. The campaign quickly expanded into a general strike/lockout throughout the country by other truckers, factory owners, wholesalers, retailers, professionals, and others. They demanded a reversal of much of the Unidad Popular program, but their leverage was not complete. Some economic activity continued, especially where Leftists seized locked-out facilities. A compromise settlement ended the plan for a socialized trucking industry, and brought 3 military officers into the cabinet, pledged to ensure orderly Congressional elections a few months later in March 1973.

There were street fights between far-Left militants and far-right militants. An emergency was declared in Concepcion in May 72 after a street fight injured 42, and killed one MIRista. In Sep 72, armed vigilante groups PROTECO and SOL appeared in anti-Left middle-class suburbs. An emergency was declared in Santiago in May 73 after the death of a Fatherland and Freedom militant.

There was a non-stop series of farm and factory seizures by radical members of Allende's coalition, without his authorization. Owners sometimes resisted force with force, if they could organize in time. Where, as was often the case, the seizures were illegal, the Army and courts usually saw no particular reason to block self-defense by owners.

More often, however, the seizures were successful. Legal requests to Allende to reverse them were almost never granted. As a result productivity in the seized enterprises would drop sharply, as the new proletarian managers were more concerned about feeling good and setting up model benefit programs than about working at a profit.

Middle-class entrepreneurs not on Allende's hit-list nevertheless distrusted him, as unable to keep his promises.

In some cases, the seizures were part of an active class struggle, in other cases, however, they reflected a breakdown of Allende's moderate approach. The official Unidad Popular program concentrated on pampering workers in government enterprises, and limiting expropriations to foreign firms and large "monopolies." Workers in smaller farms and factories were supposed to be patient and content with the symbolism of the UP coalition. They soon became impatient, however, and demanded the nationalization of their own workplaces, so that they too could enjoy inflated public-sector paychecks and laid-back public-sector working conditions.

Apart from the usual public-sector inefficiencies, there was an additional reason for low productivity at many seized plants: ambiguous ownership status. Many factories were seized under a law giving only temporary (emergency) management ("intervention" or "requisition") to the State; profits and assets (if any) were supposedly held in trust for the original owners. Ripping off hated capitalists was one more tempting excuse for slipshod and wasteful management practices.

The March 1973 Congressional election settled nothing. The opposition had hoped to get 2/3 of the vote, enough to impeach Allende, but failed. Allende's supporters tried to spin their 44% of the vote as an improvement over the 1970 Presidential race, but not very convincingly: the opposition still polled a 56% majority. The next legal chance to break the impasse would not come until the Presidential election in 1976.

Both sides prepared for the worst, but Allende was fatally handicapped: his radicals (the people seizing farms and factories) would not allow him to appease moderate Christian Democrats, and the Army, which he never controlled, would not allow him to consolidate revolutionary power.

On July 26, 1973, the opposition began another truckers' strike/lockout.

On August 23, 1973, the opposition-controlled Congress issued a declaration that the Allende government was in fundamental violation of Chile's constitution.

I dispute your basic premise that Chile "self-destructed" after several years of covert CIA action.

Very well, then prove to me that the 1973 coup was the direct result of CIA action and only happened due to U.S. involvement.

relying solely upon your ability to insult people into silence.

This from the man who thinks referring to people as "fuckwit" is a brilliant argument.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:14 AM on November 2, 2001

lj:I dispute the characterization of the Chilean coup in 1973 as "CIA orchestrated,"

Funny, I did a search of this page and "CIA orchestrated" doesn't appear until you said it there. Who are you quoting here? The voices in your head?

I guess you aren't familiar with the definition of "characterization." Please consult a dictionary.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:15 AM on November 2, 2001

And I guess you aren't familiar with the usage of quotation marks; hint: they're for quoting. Strunk & White's Elements of Style may help you on your journey to learning that other part of English known as grammar.
Still, we'd hate to lose that inimitable lj style of refuting 'characterizations' of people's arguments while pretending to refute the real argument.
posted by boaz at 6:32 AM on November 2, 2001

And I guess you aren't familiar with the usage of quotation marks; hint: they're for quoting. Strunk & White's Elements of Style may help you

I guess you missed the instructions in Strunk & White's book on the proper form for book titles.

Still, we'd hate to lose that inimitable lj style

And that proper nouns are capitalized.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:48 AM on November 2, 2001

"Were you trained at Fort Benning?" I can tell where you where trained nick.
" It's not your job to go round poking your finger into everyone else's pies..." BIG SAM: "I am the Pie."
If The Company injects itself, without noticeable effect, into the foreordained, their only measurable achievement will be to provision cranky parts of the world with a convenient, high-profile villain - a villain with high-rise targets. One would think that those who seek to excuse the CIA by arguing its inconsequence would be among the first to recommend a clear-eyed appraisal of The Company's function. So how come the people most adroit at establishing the CIA's exonerative impotence are often the same people who want to extend their 'mission' and engorge their budget?" Is there a question, even a well reasoned observation in this statement.?
"pay for one, get one free?" why pay for one when you can have two at twice the price;)"Can you tell them apart" given the right tools, yes. sorry holgate, your flimsy premise holds, so does my hand with water in it. Your argument is just reactionary."The cia interfered with the politics of Chile, causing the assassination of a leader." this is your position, yes? well the proof aint there nick. As much proof of innocence as well as guilt are in both arguments. but lj has facts on his side and his premise is simple. prove the cia killed this man. lj wins. What about ICI nick. What about the old BOC, later BP oil. The brits supported the sheikh Mohammerah(Iran) not Pahlevi. So the crown intervened on all levels to ensure the infra fell under the control of whom they could trust. the thing is, i see the logic of the move. the local rulers ran the show concerning pipelines and all. the Tehran govt. couldnt control the local khans.
posted by clavdivs at 6:53 AM on November 2, 2001

boaz, if your cruising for grammar violations, I'm your huckleberry.
posted by clavdivs at 6:55 AM on November 2, 2001

And that proper nouns are capitalized.

It was uncapitalized when I found it, ljromanoff; no disrespect intended. So, do you prefer LJ, Lance or Mr. Romanoff?
posted by boaz at 6:59 AM on November 2, 2001

It was uncapitalized when I found it, ljromanoff; no disrespect intended. So, do you prefer LJ, Lance or Mr. Romanoff?

Any of the above are fine, Mr. Stuller. Thanks for asking.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:02 AM on November 2, 2001

Wow, ljromanoff, you must have a lot of time on your hands, grasping at straws, refusing to face the music. I hope you get outside occasionally.
posted by mapalm at 7:39 AM on November 2, 2001

Wow, ljromanoff, you must have a lot of time on your hands, grasping at straws, refusing to face the music. I hope you get outside occasionally.

Wow, your comments are a waste of time.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:03 AM on November 2, 2001

Wow, ljromanoff, you must have a lot of time on your hands, grasping at straws, refusing to face the music. I hope you get outside occasionally.

mapalm, that's uncool. LJR presented cogent arguments in response to previous comments. That's what it's all about. If you disagree, back it up. (That's also what it's about.) I've enjoyed reading his remarks here, and it's not for you to attack anyone for participating.

(As for the discussion itself, LJR, it does remain a question what role the U.S. interference had in each of those events in your timeline. But you have made a good case for at least doubting that the CIA made it all happen; and it's hard to see how we can decide the question conclusively, here. That said, I await holgate's retort...)
posted by mattpfeff at 8:31 AM on November 2, 2001

True, mattpfeff. My frustration got the best of me. I should not have replied to what I saw as a vortex of disinformation. Arguments sometimes reach a critical mass, beyond which they cannot advance. I will refrain next time. Peace.

(And no hard feelings to ljromanoff.)
posted by mapalm at 8:58 AM on November 2, 2001

(And no hard feelings to ljromanoff.)

Likewise to you.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:57 AM on November 2, 2001

Allende did not get a majority at all, which is why his holding office is somewhat dubious. Chilean law required a majority.

Allende got 36.3% of the votes, Alessandri 35% and Tomic 27.8%. Allende's margin over Alessandri was 39,000.

Oxford English Dictionary: majority: greater number or part.

The SOA is a U.S. Army facility that brings Latin American officers to the United States for training [...] ten officers indicted by the United Nations for crimes connected to General Augusto Pinochet's coup in Chile. (my emphasis).

I don't know what hair-splitting points you're aguing over, ljromanoff, but the connection between Pinochet and SOA is clear.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:05 AM on November 2, 2001

"the connection between Pinochet and SOA is clear" daddy always said: "knowledge is not power, what you do with the knowledge is the power" so what did some of these SOA guys do?, very bad things. SOA was an augmented training program for latin american armed forces. so it is not clear. do you propose that SOA trained personnel learned Coup 101 in the United States? A pronunciamiento is a spanish term sir. They did not need to learn torture and sabotage from us. unfortunately, these acts are inherent in all men.
posted by clavdivs at 10:19 AM on November 2, 2001

Yes, but when the world's most powerful and greatest country, and the country that has the biggest part to play in South America's economy, is teaching you these things, don't you think there's a little more to it than knowledge?

You can debate fine points over and over again, but it seems pretty clear that the US has acted in foreign countries in ways that would not be tolerated on our home soil. I agree that in many cases this was to protect our interests, or at least that was the perception. What I do not buy is that the self-preservation (carried to the extreme around the globe) was somehow noble made sense as an ethical and logical exercise... it was dirty business and should be discussed and talked about as such, instead of trying to place it inside some hermetically sealed worldview where competing greedy interests are somehow seen as more right than others.
posted by cell divide at 10:28 AM on November 2, 2001

Allende did not get a majority at all, which is why his holding office is somewhat dubious. Chilean law required a majority.

Allende got 36.3% of the votes, Alessandri 35% and Tomic 27.8%. Allende's margin over Alessandri was 39,000.

Oxford English Dictionary: majority: greater number or part.

That's only half the definition. A majority is the greater number or part; a number more than half of the total, i.e., more than 50% - which is what Chilean law required. Allende only had a plurality, not a majority.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:57 AM on November 2, 2001

see cell, now we get to morality. Coups have none save ethics. acts tolerated....acts tolerated. rapid drug addiction, poor lower education, poverty(should be 1#) mistrust of internal police(hell, thats always;) We tolerate unfair laws, people who act upon racism, people who steal rare jewels(opps:) well, we have seen the movie. In the first crusade, one sees the propaganda, the encroachment of a more aggressive east. do i trash Urban, call him the unholy follower of genoan assassins?(though that term came from sabbah-around 1090 his little faction dug in with the opinion making- paradise machine) Urban was rallying the troops by 1095. do we say all these events are results of dirty-secret wars? this is butt-faced humanity. adhering to the ideology when found to be wrong is the key to understanding this madness. (any of the madness) Harun (aaron) was perhaps the greatest ruler of the age. His task was...beyond any Christian. he held a court of learned men, greece has scarcely seen. The schism of monotheism is in the heart of men. They ruin its ideal practicality.
posted by clavdivs at 11:30 AM on November 2, 2001

Hey, is ljromanoff a pseudonymn for Henry Kissinger?
posted by mmarcos at 5:02 PM on November 2, 2001

One more time: had ljromanoff argued that "had the CIA not spent four years undermining Allende, and then propagandised in favour of Pinochet after the coup, the Allende regime would have inevitably self-destructed", it would be an interesting piece of counter-factual historical speculation, and I wouldn't have been able to call him on it. Alas, sufficient evidence of CIA involvement in and around the coup means that to argue an "inevitable self-destruction" based upon the events of the early 1970s is untenable.

holgate: I dispute your basic premise that Chile "self-destructed" after several years of covert CIA action.

ljr: Very well, then prove to me that the 1973 coup was the direct result of CIA action and only happened due to U.S. involvement.

See, the two aren't comparable, and that's where ljr fails miserably. He wants evidence of direct involvement in the coup as if four years of covert operations didn't offset the necessary reflexivity implied in his assertion that Chile "self-destructed". Proving direct involvement as a final cause isn't necessary to disprove "inevitable self-destruction". If you douse someone with petrol, you increase the chance that he will catch fire, whether or not you're the one tossing the matches in the final instance. And it's that long history which is beyond dispute. We can't ever know if Allende would have survived uninhibited by US intervention in Chile, because that situation never arose. In short, by contending that Chile's was an inevitable self-destruction, ljr placed himself in the position of having to prove a negative. More fool him for making the claim in the first place.
posted by holgate at 2:23 PM on November 4, 2001

Alas, sufficient evidence of CIA involvement in and around the coup means that to argue an "inevitable self-destruction" based upon the events of the early 1970s is untenable.

Nice of you to finally show up. If there is sufficient evidence, then make the case. Trying to wiggle out of the argument by merely stating the the evidence exists is not valid.

Again and again you have stated that "four years of covert action" are the motivation for civic unrest in Chile in 1972 & 1973. If so, show the connection between the CIA's leaflet campaigns, etc. and near chaos in a very short period.

Proving direct involvement as a final cause isn't necessary to disprove "inevitable self-destruction".

If there was no direct involvement (and you have, so far, not shown any evidence that there was) then other factors are the cause of the anarchy and ultimate coup in 1973. Unless you are going to argue there was some other external force at work, then the events of 1973 were the internal workings of Chile impoding. Describing that as "self-destruction" is apt.

We can't ever know if Allende would have survived uninhibited by US intervention in Chile, because that situation never arose.

The US intervention is a non-factor in Allende's fall compared to other, internal issues. If you are convinced otherwise, demostrate the evidence.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:49 PM on November 4, 2001

Nice of you to finally show up.

Oh, am I at your beck and call now?

I'm not the one wiggling out of the argument, ljr, because I wasn't the one making the argument by claiming that Chile's fate was "inevitable" and that the country was "self-destructing" in 1973. Again, "self-destruction" implies no external involvement in the collapse of the Allende regime. Prove that there was none. I'm waiting. You made the claim, you provide the evidence. If you can't, then your assertion is unverifiable. Once more, just to emphasise things: you made the claim that Chile's fate was an inevitable self-destruction, so the ball is in your court.

And trying to counter your own unsupportable assertions by forcing others to prove something quite different is a rather pathetic trick. Put up or shut up when your tendency to exaggerate gets the better of you.
posted by holgate at 3:18 PM on November 4, 2001

I'm not the one wiggling out of the argument, ljr, because I wasn't the one making the argument by claiming that Chile's fate was "inevitable" and that the country was "self-destructing" in 1973. Again, "self-destruction" implies no external involvement in the collapse of the Allende regime.

Now you're just repeating yourself. The Allende regime collapsed due to massive domestic unrest and an inherently unstable division of power within the Chilean government. Examples of this are listed above should you care to read them. You claim that these were in fact caused by "external destabilisation." So where's the proof?

Put up or shut up when your tendency to exaggerate gets the better of you.

I could learn quite a lot from you in the exaggeration department, Nick. Aside from insults as a form of argument, it's one of your strengths.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:28 PM on November 4, 2001