Photo: retrieved

The United States’ fear of losing power will unequivocally lead to the growth of the Left in Latin America. On one hand, U.S. international relations have relied on its military and economic power, rather than a friendly diplomacy, excluding—maybe—the Obama administration;  on the other hand, the Latin American left wing’s main narrative has always been based on the fight against “El Imperio” and its colonialist practices.

Today, the incarnation of American fear is sitting in the Oval Office. Thus, the left wing’s narrative is being well-fed and nurtured. We see it in Mexico, Bolivia and Venezuela. “The Wall” gave AMLO the ammunition for an electoral victory; Evo is given a golden opportunity to ramble on Twitter as an answer to threats of invasion; Maduro’s speech at the UNGA had his favorite gravy: Operación Cóndor. Every day, the left-wing brings back memories of thousands of murders, tortures and disappearances, the result of the CIA’s direct instructions in the 80s right-wing dictatorships.

We carry a burden, a heritage that will never be forgotten—and shouldn’t.

We carry a burden, a heritage that will never be forgotten—and shouldn’t. Operación Cóndor was the fight against communism that turned America into what it was trying to get rid of: a murderous superpower that prevailed by force, and not by freedom. The United States did prevent communism from rising in the 80s but at an enormous cost. Today, Operación Cóndor in Latin America is a cautionary tale against an armed intervention.

The Operación Cóndor was based on a simple premise: if the CIA helps the right-wing, Russia won’t be able to gain power. So, the CIA planned and executed coups with an impressive success rate. We saw Pinochet, Videla, Stroessner, Fujimori and Brazil’s long-standing military dictatorship grow strong due to American backing.

But to look to the North and blame the U.S for our deaths would be the denial of what Carlos Rangel said so many times in “Del buen salvaje al buen revolucionario”: We have an inability—or lack of willingness—to accept the responsibility for our mistakes and our tragedies. So, we look to the North.

This could not be better synthesized by anyone other than García Márquez himself:

“We were ready to absolve the CIA of all blame. In fact, with all of its power and money, the CIA could not have accomplished a thing without the connivance of the governing classes of Latin America, without the venality of our civil servants, and without the limitless corruption possibilities of our politicians.”

Let’s take a look at the story of Maria Macarena Tauriño, whose parents were kidnapped when her mother was pregnant while living in Buenos Aires. His father was tortured and executed. Her mother was forced to move to Montevideo, where she was kept in a clandestine detention center. Once she gave birth, the security corps took her baby and left her in a basket in front of Ángel Tauriño’s house. She was raised by Ángel and knew nothing about her origins until her grandfather told María that her mother and father were tortured and murdered for believing in communism.

But, we still find ourselves amidst an interventionist debate: The Venezuelan crisis is unsustainable, it’s hurting the entire continent and the government denies it.  What should we do, then?

Last week, The New York Times editorial batió el panal. Meanwhile, Mujica said that the sanctions were to blame, Almagro talked about the responsibility to protect, Colombia clarified “all options must be considered”, and the Grupo de Lima refused any violent intervention.

The fear of setting the precedent for an intervention is what motivates the Grupo de Lima to reject the U.S. proposal, not because of the weak “sovereignty” argument, nor a left-wing endorsement, but a visceral fear of living what they once lived. They do not want the CIA in their backyards once again.

Politicians all over America seek a way to prevent disaster, but our history is an obstacle for one of the possible solutions.

Politicians all over America seek a way to prevent disaster, but our history is an obstacle for one of the possible solutions. The intervention will never be accepted by many Latin-American actors because they already experienced it and fear it deeply. We will never see Bachelet openly calling for a U.S. intervention. She was tortured by a right-wing dictatorship which was protected by the CIA, and that’s one of the reasons for her involvement in the left-wing sphere: she lived the fear of the Imperio.

There may be two solutions for Venezuela: Venezuela beats the communist dictatorship by itself, which can be difficult due to the extreme damage the government has done to the opposition, or we start playing the game of Latin geopolitics right.

We need to use international actors to create trust and star operating as a real regional coalition. Our region needs to act beyond “comunicados” and “declaraciones”, nowhere near the active involvement of the U.S. to prevent that feeling politicians have in their gut when intervention and Latin America get mentioned in the same sentence.

Countries that once praised Venezuela for its free oil and for Chávez’s gifts are now being economically affected by Venezuela’s migration crisis. A solution to the crisis is pivotal for their economic growth.

The answer, after Operación Cóndor, has never been in the United States, but in our region. Let’s not feed the left-wing narrative, but the people starving in Venezuela.

 

Caracas Chronicles is 100% reader-supported. Support independent Venezuelan journalism by making a donation.

86 COMMENTS

  1. Once again CC decides to criticize the his royal highness Donald Trump.This is anti American,Communist, Marxist propaganda at it’s finest.The US needs to invade and now to bring freedom to Venezuela.

    • So easy to rip this article to shreds, however, i just don not have the will any more to try to convert people on this site.
      At the end of the day some child who describes himself thus, does it better for me.
      “You can call me Iggy. I study law at Universidad Católica Andrés Bello and —like Curious George— I’m a child.”
      Ignacio Ayala you summed it up beautifully.
      When there are some grown ups in the room, maybe we can have a serious discourse?

      • Yes, A SELF CONFESSED CHILD SAYS IT ALL!!! People like you are why VENEZUELA WILL BE CUBAZUELA FOR YEARS AND YEARS. Stop repeating this LEFTIST BULLSHIT and GROW A PAIR OF NUTS!!! You have the NUTS OF A THREE YEAR OLD!!! Do you care about bringing FREEDOM TO VENEZUELA or are you another limp dick like Quico who likes to take it in the ass by the Chavistas and wine and dine with the FAKE OPPOSITION???

      • Just thought I’d reorient this “pack of lies article” back to reality: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-health-usa/u-s-working-to-halt-spread-of-diseases-from-venezuela-idUSKCN1MC2ZL
        This is the Trump administration at work, sending resources, men, and money to offer a helping hand to the plight of Venezuelans.

        The lying socialists cannot stand this obvious exposition of their stinking lies and vacant insults. So the socialists who created the hunger and diseases out of their own insane policies, state that “Trump has a mental disorder”. They further would say that this offer of assistance to the region is “pure evil at work, a blatant attempt to corrupt the purity of the Venezuelan people with soul-less capitalist money, more evidence yet of pure greed and murder to steal from the poor.”

        The difficult thing about insulting a socialist is that there is so little there to insult. If you call a pig “a pig” you do nothing to insult the pig; if you call a worm a worm, you do nothing to lower the status of the worm; if you call a socialist a malicious, murderous liar, you do nothing more than call him by his name.

        A good man, by contrast, is easy to insult, because there is so much there of value, to belittle. A man builds a business enterprise that employs thousands of workers and trains them, so you can call him any of a large selection of names, anything beneath “successful businessman”, and it is an insult. A common insult is “greedy enslaver of the masses”. So you have socialists easily insulting worthy men. It’s not hard.

        A great man who brings rationality and functionality to millions, President Trump for example, is one the socialist would say “has mental problems”. The proof of the socialist lies and treachery to all human sentiment, is President Trump’s success and accomplishments.

        And remember – calling a lying socialist a pig worm and a mass-murderer is not an insult at all. It is calling him by his true name. The only real problem is that a socialist never accomplishes anything but destruction, so there is nothing there to destroy, and destroying the socialist himself furthers his own impulses.

        Part of the solution to the pernicious disease of socialism is to expose the socialist for what he is, and to not accept at all what he pretends to be. Another part of the solution is to continue to produce, offer some of the surplus as help to the sick and starving socialist mired in his own pig-pen whether he deserves it or not, and simply ignore the socialist screaming about how production is destruction, and ignore his vile insults.

        (But it is so tempting to tell a socialist to take a long run on a short pier. He will not understand why anyone would say such a thing to a worm like himself that is incapable of running at all, and scream about your lack of humanity.)

        Still we try to help him out of the socialist trap, offer him a bit of medicine when he is ill, and try to contain the illness. And still, we get insults as thanks.

        • *Sigh*
          Any sane person giving one solitary dollar, monthly subscription, intellectual investment is money pissed away. My 20+ years of support (mind you not very much) has been a wish, a hope and nothing more. Nothing is going to change in Venezuela. They hate the USA and Trump more than they love their own children, family, mothers, strangers, medicine, food, religion, or even *life itself.*

          I can no longer support those who consistently put pride before destruction and death of their own citizens. That includes these CC authors all too willing to legitimize the dictator.

          Good luck and best wishes.

  2. Lamentablemente Gringolandia está actualmente paralizada con todos sus rollos por un presidente con
    severos problemas psiquiátricos, un sujeto cuya riqueza se basa no solo en el dinero que heredo de su padre sino en dinero que blanqueó para los oligarcas rusos, un sujeto que no se cansa de alabar a un dictador comunista (el Kim Jong-un).

    Algunas organizaciones que no están totalmente manejadas por la política, como el NSA, podrían proporcionar datos útiles para que los latinoamericanos denuncien más de la corrupción chavista y comiencen a perseguir a más boliburgueses pero para que lo hagan requerirán de un gobierno que no esté demasiado ocupado en sobrevivir escándalos internos.

    Los americanos que hablamos español no podemos depender de los gringos.
    Debemos definitivamente tomar la iniciativa en geopolítica aunque sea a través de campañas de informaciòn
    y procesos legales en todo el mundo. Lamentablemente los líderes venezolanos no parecen ser personas que tengan mucho conocimiento de historia universal, no son personas que hayan leido o que tengan otra instrucción que la requerida para obtener un pedazo de papel…usualmente sobre derecho venezolano.

    Aquellos líderes que sí estén en capacidad de actuar deben presentar un mensaje claro, sucinto, de la manera en que los chavistas roban, matan, destruyen un país. Deben coordinar protestas internacionales que hagan la vida imposible de los chavistas – algo más inteligente y menos discutible que el escrache que se hizo en 2017a algunos boliburgueses y sus familiares-.

    Tenemos un gran reto: Rusia no es la de Gorbachov sino la de un gobierno de pillos. Debemos una y otra vez mostrar a la comunidad internacional y a los rusos cómo su gobierno está ayudando a una banda de asesinos.
    Debemos hacer otro tanto con China. Que sepan que todo el mundo sabe que apoyan a un régimen tan inmoral o más que el del criminal Pinochet.

    No va a ser fácil porque estos tienen un montón de agentes que, aunque meten la pata mil veces, como lo hicieron en Inglaterra recientemente, también son capaces de causar un montón de daños, sobre todo si uno no está preparado a defenderse.

  3. Wow! So many errors of judgment. Where to begin. One thing right. LA IRRESPONSIBILITY. But, Obama’s LA diplomacy being correct to stop the Left in LA?? The CIA CAUSING the right-wing LA govts., which really were spawned by Communist incompetency (e.g., Allende’s Chile). Leave the LA Region alone/non-intervention to govern itself (so that Left-wing Castro/international Communists can have their way)? “Innocent” Argentine Commies kidnapped/tortured only for their “beliefs”? Mujica blaming U.S. economic sanctions for Venezuela’s Commie cluster-fuck? For God’s sake, bring on Operation Condor Redux NOW–irresponsible LA will apparently always not be able to help itself alone against the Castro/intl. Commie influence.

    • Bolsonaro, a former paratrooper, has already said that he will do “whatever it takes” to bring Maduro down, and that his first trip will be to the US to align his policies with Trump’s.

      Leftists are desperate. Caracas Chronicles is desperate.

      No wonder the editor selected this text one day before the Brazilian elections. They have developed a serious case of stockholm syndrome for their captors.

      And yes, you are spot on the cold war context.

      It was not a conflict between far-right dictatorship rule and democracy, but rather about far-right military rule and USSR-backed communism. Democracy was not an option, the institutions were just too weak to stand the KGB and its peers in the region. Hell, Venezuela is the fucking poster-child of what would have happened to us, we would all have been eaten alive by Fidel Castro, had our armies chosen to wash their hands and not intervene, like they did in Venezuela.

      Apparently, this is what the author wanted. No wonder Venezuela is in such state.

      • “Leftists are desperate. Caracas Chronicles is desperate.”

        Beautifully said Radical!!!

        No wonder nobody donates to this piece of shit and just goes straight to the comments. We all know that Quico is paid off by the fake opposition.

        This never should have been published in the fake arepa. Better off publishing this bullshit in VenezuelaAnalysis where they do not have a comment section.

      • Radicalized by the left, I think you are onto something.

        Before the May 20th Election, that is when all the FALSONISTAS showed up at CCS Chronicles. I think our boy child Ignacio is another one of those FALSONISTAS. Begging and pleading for us to not go down the path of intervention, WHICH IS THE ONLY SOLUTION!!!

        Furthermore, right now you have the MUD CRAP in Washington right now. Maybe they are trying to go down the path of a negotiated salida. But once the discourse becomes “negotiated salida” that is when WE HAVE TO LOOK OUT FOR THE TRAMPA!!!

        THE ONLY WAY TO END THIS BULLSHIT IS TO KEEP THE WAR DRUMS BANGING AND ZERO NEGOTIATION. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THESE RATS WILL COME TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE. IF WE PROVIDE THEM ANY OXYGEN BY TALKING A NEGOTIATED SALIDA, WE DO JUST THAT, GIVE THEM OXYGEN. WE ARE DEALING WITH THE BIGGEST SCAM ARTISTS IN THE WORLD. YOU CANNOT BELIEVE THE CHAVISTAS NOR THE FALSONISTAS/FAKE OPPOSITION. GOT TO KEEP THE WAR DRUMS BANGING (whether you believe in an intervention or not–very important point) AND THAT IS THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS. It is time to get in the bully’s face and knock him out or make him back the f down.

        Ignacio as many have told you already, you are just an immature prick who doesnt know shit and most likely your daddy is an Adeco enchufado.

    • Debo decir que estoy de acuerdo con varias aseveraciones de NET.

      Los hispanoamericanos debemos asumir nuestra responsabilidad. Es curioso que Garcia Márquez hablara de ello pero apoyase a un sanguinario dictador como Castro.

      El rollo actual es ante todo parte de ese pensamiento del pseudointelectual idiota que tenemos en Iberoamérica. Tendemos a fluctuar de una posición de pitiyanki que quiere ser más gringo que los gringos, con un pensamiento profundamente feudalista y o racista a una posición izquierdista basada en resentimiento y rechazo a tomar cualquier tipo de responsabilidad.

      Aunque los gobiernos gringos no han tenido mucho margen de maniobra después de haber apoyado a tantos dictadores, Obama falló totalmente en cuanto a Hispanoamérica. Perdió una oportunidad enorme.
      Por supuesto que Trump no hace nada mejor: decir de vez en cuando que va a invadir un país no es precisamente la manera más efectiva de hacer geopolítica. No lo fue en tiempo de los sumerios y no lo es ahora. O haces algo o te callas.

    • At this point if Latam people want to live in shit let them, the more i see how fuck up this part of the continent is and how much marxist apoligist got the more i sugest the US to cut all ties with the region and let natural selection do his magic, Latam people either evolve or die.

  4. Iggy,
    You have the right to your opinion, however misguided regarding President Trump.
    You may want to take your blinders off, take a good look around and see if you can find anyone else that has the ability to remove this regime.
    Here is a news flash. There is no possibility of achieving regime change by political means or negotiations.
    The Trump administration’s sanctions have been targeted against the criminals that hold the country hostage while trying to do as little harm as possible to the people of Venezuela.
    Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) that was agreed to by all UN member states in 2005 following the Rwandan genocide. Russia and China have since removed themselves as signatories. That should come as no surprise to the people that suffer under an illegitimate regime that is propped up by these 2 countries.
    Rather than worrying about the US invading Venezuela, you should be worried that the US doesn’t. The humanitarian crisis that is occurring in Venezuela goes unnoticed by the majority of Americans. The simple reason is that the US isn’t impacted by it.
    The hundreds of billions of Dollars that would most likely be spent on any intervention, can be spent on drug interdiction and controlling illegal immigration. The US can easily live without Venezuela.
    The reality is that Venezuela is of little strategic importance to the US or many other countries. US oil production is at all time highs. The US carbon footprint is about the same as it was in the 1970’s. Renewable energy is rapidly becoming less expensive.
    Intervention in Venezuela by the US will not be for our benefit and I have no problem with keeping our troops out of your country and your refugees out of mine.

  5. If you are playing a card game and want to win , you can only play with the cards you have , you cannot complain and ask to get better cards , the optimal or ideal cards , what is true of card games is equally true of ideological and geopolitical struggles , when the allies fought against the Nazis none of them thought or rejecting the cooperation of Stalins army , even if he was a mass murderer and a blood thirsty tyrant……., In the european wars of the XVi century Richelieu , a prince of the Church , tought nothing of allying himself with protestant powers to advance the interests of France against his fellow Catholic rivals ……, of course what happens in war sometimes cannot be controlled to prevent excesses and crimes , but an effort must be made to prevent atrocities such as some of Condors participants perpetrated against innocent civilians …there is no excusing that , but aside from that perhaps Condor served a useful purpose when conditions made its implementation convenient ……!!

    • He knows that!

      I don’t think the author would refuse an alliance with the Americans to save his own country, his problem is with the GOP, with Trump. It’s an ideological thing, actually.

      Had Hillary won, or if Obama were somehow still calling the shots in the backstage, he would have had a different approach.

  6. If you are a gardener and want to raise lovely plants you might think of fertilizing them with manure , maybe handling manure isnt so exquisite but it gets the job done ……..so you forget about the discomfortof handling raw manure and instead think of the lovely plants you will grow by using it as fertilizer….

      • Cow shit works awesome, chicken shit is even better and bat shit is the bomb. You dont know shit Gringo2 (btw gringo2 because you cannot bring the A game and be gringo1). Bill Bass provided a great metaphor and I have grown awesome half kilo Margarita Tomatoes with some really good composted shit that were F(*king gormet.

  7. “The United States’ fear of losing power will unequivocally lead to the growth of the Left in Latin America.”

    When I was born, the US Navy was third rate, behind Japan and way behind the Brits. Our best aircraft, the P-40, was totally outclassed but the Spitfire, the Zero and the ME-109. Our army was laughable, outranked by the Portuguese. We had fulfilled our Manifest Destiny, building a nation from coast to coast. and wanted nothing but to be left alone.

    Then the Japs bombed us, and a few days later, the Europeans declared war on us.

    Five years later (1945) we represented the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen and it has been that way ever since.

    Today we are weary and just want to be left alone again. That explains the Trump phenomenon and the desire for The Wall. We have absolutely no fear of “losing power”. You don’t like us? Fine! Don’t mess with us and we won’t mess with you.

    • I am not an american but i totally understand that sentiment, Latam and his people not only insist in their romance with the left but stay making the same mistakes over and over and over again is ridiculous, them end up hating the US for not doing nothing and hating it even more when it does something, thats why is say to myself, US needs to invest into protecting themself and leaving Latam alone to do as their please, those who dont evolve die, maybe Latam people are destined to be the human dodo

  8. “The United States’ fear of losing power will unequivocally lead to the growth of the Left in Latin America. ”

    1/ What, exactly, do people mean by the “Left” or the “Right” these days, Iggy? Or even “Liberals” vs. “Conservatives”? Think about it. Get real examples of real politicians, and real policy. “Socialists” are truly hard-core Capitalists in disguise, first chance they get. Right-wing dudes are as soft as they come, these days, in certain areas. So spare us the “left” vs. “right” crap. It’s border-line retarded by now. Red recks with minimal education in the USA might go for it, or the clueless pueblo-people in Kleptozuela. But anyone with half a brain should highly skeptical when the media, such as Iggy here, talk crap about “the left” or the “right”. It’s all pretty much down the middle these days, dude, it’s called freaking politics> Scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours, and say whatever is politically correct in certain venues, at a certain time. To get fucking votes and approval and money. Simple as that.

    It’s a bunch of CRAP. Politics crap, that is. Sancocho e’ medula, as Vytas Brenner would say. Arroz con mango, isn’t it?

    2/ The grouth of the Left? In Latin America? That only happens when the PEOPLE are incredibly MAL EDUCADOS, clueless, as in Klepto-Chinazuela. What just happened even in Colombia? People were sufficiently well- informed, better educated than our indio/corrupt populace, so they chose, by ample margin, Duque over Petro. What’s about to happen in Brasil? Same shit. They are not as dumb as our ‘bravo pueblo’, you see. Even in Ecuador and Bolivia, they are starting to wake up. Even in Nicaragua, fed up with the Populist crap. Panama? Chile, Argentina: MACRI. To the right dude. The more educated the Latin American Indians get, the smarter they are. Not as easily fooled and enslaved as Cubans 70 years ago were, or Kleptozuelans today are.

    In Civilized nations, such as Chile or Uruguay or even Costa Rica, the tendency is arroz con mango. Down the middle. Some Capitalism with some ‘socialism”. In fact, the more educated and advanced societies will get, the less Government intervention they will need: Free markets. Oferta y demanda. “Government” is by definition a putrid entity of bureaucrats, chupa medias, demagogues, habla-pajas. It needs to get smaller, not bigger, and neither to the “left” or “right”, sino todo lo contrario.

    In that sense the UK and the USA, as usual, lead the way. In Europe, look at Macron now in France. Europeans are sick&tired of politics. Eventually, the governments will also get smaller and right down the middle, just to enforce basic Laws and punishment, and some education (not too much either).

  9. “you forget about the discomfortof handling raw manure and instead think of the lovely plants you will grow by using it as fertilizer….”

    That’s what Fidel accomplished in Cuba, as Chavismo in Klepto-Cubazuela: the pueblo-people are getting used to handle the populist raw manure as if it were flowers. Getting used to living in poverty and slavery. Or ENCHUFADOS, by the Millions, at all levels, complicit, and culpable. (Not all, but the majority of what’s left of our lamentable, corrupt, uneducated populace). Que gocen su mierda frehquesita!

  10. “But, we still find ourselves amidst an interventionist debate: The Venezuelan crisis is unsustainable, it’s hurting the entire continent and the government denies it. What should we do, then?”

    Stupidly, the so-called “opposition keeps utilizing the word “interventionism”, much as they reinforce the Kleptozuelan Narco-Tyranny by calling that shit “Government” or “Authorities”.

    Instead of choosing their words more carefully, nothing illegal about that, huh. It should be called Humanitarian SOS assistance from the international community. The UN and the freaking OEA and the USA should set up Humanitarian bases by the borders with Brasil and Colombia NOW. And, covertly of course, start planning attacks on the Genocidal Criminal Regime of Thugs, with Snipers, drones, malcontent Kleptozuelan military plots with the CIA, whatever. Lend technology and MONEY. Bribes some corrupt Kleptozuelan “Generals”. Grant them amnesty and a new identity and safe havens, yes. For the sake of millions of pueblo-people clueless victims. to LIBERATE, and that’s the right word, a freaking oppressed and hijacked country of 30 million subservient and powerless indians, for the most part.

    To avoid the INTERVENTIONISM from Cuba, Russia China, Iran, etc. Which already took place. Kleptozuela is in fact a freaking Colony by now, it belongs to Cuba/China/Russia and other corrupt Millionaires.

    It needs to be liberated by FORCE, because that’s the only solution. CLEARLY. Because the Narco-Criminals in Kleptozuela will nor EVER leave peacefully, because they face JAIL time, and confiscation of their stolen properties/monies.

    But the freaking media keeps using the wrong words, they are almost as dumb and as clueless as the helpless pueblo-people that needs to be rescued.

    • “To avoid the INTERVENTIONISM from Cuba, Russia China, Iran, etc. Which already took place.”

      That’s the beauty of it, Curious George fear an intervention coming from a democracy like the US that would expel Russia and China from his own country, and consequently liberate his own people from enslavement, but Curious George doesn’t want any of that, he wants to preserve and nurture the red endangered species living there, their ecosystem, now I understand why they call him Curious George.

      I believe that someone like Curious George is not a bad person at all, as he merely parrots what his professors have been telling him since he was born, without reflecting too much on it. His world is simple, but then again, Give Curious George the choice of moving to China, Russia, other LA country, or the US, and he will always choose the US.

      He’s a child.

  11. Sorry, Iggy, but this is not a good article. There are a lot of unchecked assumptions, faulty logic, and non-sequiturs here. You seem to be making up facts just to arrive at whatever conclusion you had predetermined. For example, AMLO won the presidential election in Mexico for many reasons. The wall was the least of it. And that’s just one example. This is not political analysis, a historical dissertation, or a thoughtful opinion piece.

    • And straight away the Mexicans lose NAFTA and now have to deal with USMCA.
      Those leftists really know how to win big…..laughable.

  12. And NET. is absolutely right, as usual. This freaking post is loaded with inaccuracies, errors of judgement, historical misconceptions, awkwardness and outstanding stupidity. Operacion Condorito, what a load of crap!!

  13. Let’s take a look at the story of Maria Macarena Tauriño, whose parents were kidnapped when her mother was pregnant while living in Buenos Aires.
    That was an atrocity, no doubt about it. There is no defense for it. None. However, the “milicos/gorilas who torture” narrative- truthful as far as it goes- ignores the fact that such madness was far from confined to the military in Argentina. V.S. Naipaul, in a visit to Argentina in 1972, well before the Dirty War was in full swing, interviewed some leftists: Naipaul @ New York Review of Books: The Corpse at the Iron Gate.

    “There are no internal enemies,” the trade union leader said, with a smile. But at the same time he thought that torture would continue in Argentina. “A world without torture is an ideal world.” And there was torture and torture. “Depende de quién sea torturado.It depends on who is tortured. An evildoer, that’s all right. But a man who’s trying to save the country—that’s something else. Torture isn’t only the electric prod, you know.

    ‘”It depends on who is tortured.” Guess there wasn’t as much difference between the milico gorila and the lefty guerrilla as we thought. The madness in Argentina’s political life in the 1970s was far from confined to the military. Which the lefties conveniently ignore.

  14. “The Venezuelan crisis is unsustainable”.

    Now that’s a good topic. (Probably the only line worth reading off this dumb post from Iggy here).

    Is it unsustainable, Mr future lawyer? Don’t they teach people how to think for themselves in Universidad Catolica anymore? (Not that I’m shocked by that).

    You ‘think’ that just because Cuba is smaller than Cubazuela, Klepto-Chinazuela can’t also last 7 decades and more? There are dozens of nasty Dictatorships in the Globe that have lasted way longer than just 2 decades of Chavismo. In multiple forms, tyrannies of all kinds. They know how to “atornillarse” en el poder. Especially these days, when foreign “interventionism” is such a taboo. Unfortunately, the 80’s are gone, when the Marines saved Panama and Grenada from Chavistoide crap. Can’t do that shit no’mo.

    What’s “unsustainable” about Kleptozuela’s debacle? Ask your professors in school, dude, or better yet, think for yourself. “Estudia la historia y analizala”, como dice un pana Dominicano. Uneducated, clueless, often corrupt Indians, such as the Kleptozuelan people (not all, but many), get used to living in shit. Ask the Haitians. Ask the Iranians or the Afghanis. (Afghanistanians?) Ask most of the people in Africa (many of whom live much better today than Klepto-Chinazuelans).

    To the USA and Europe, Venezuela is just some jungle of 3rd world messed-up crap, like many in the world. They are way more concerned about African immigration or Moslem crap. They have their own problems. 193 countries in the world to worry about, plus their own. You, Klepto-Cubazuela ain’t el ombligo del mundo, believe it or not. Heck, even well-educated Europeans can’t tell the difference between Nicaragua or Mexico or Guatemala or Paraguay and Venezuela. Geographically, historically, to the gringos it’s pretty much the same mess. As Trump put it, “shitholes”, many of them around.

    Oil and much of a factor anymore, fracking and shit, plus the US and India still get all the oil they wanna buy, the Chinese have bought the rest. And Putin is also happy as hell with the Kleptozuelan disaster.

    There have been much worse situation in the world, nastier Genocides than just a couple hundred students dead, a few hundred political prisoners, and about 3 million exiles. Do Rwanda, Somalia, Syria, Congo, Haiti, Zimbabwe and all of Africa plus countless Asian shitholes ring the bell?

    So, pray tell, on what exactly do you base your brainless assumption that Narco-Klepto-Cubazuela is unsustainable? History? Geography? Economy? Special interests? Politics? The good soul of the so-called “international community? Common sense? (the least common of all senses).

    So it’s highly debatable whether or not the Kleptozuelan mess will endure. It’s quite possible it will. Such messes tend to stabilize themselves, Cuban style. The world gets used to them. The clueless zombie inhabitants get used to it. They are born and raised and brain-washed in the same crap, for generations.

    My only hope is still on human beings. Honest people like Almagro, Macri, Macron, Duque, Piñera perhaps, and the Brazilain Nazi about to become president. The Chinese/Russian/Iranian influence maybe too severe for the USA to tolerate, for such a large, rich, strategically located country. Just don’t babble your baseless assumptions for the heck of it and just because they sound good. That sort of stupid ignorance and bogus “college education” is what created Chavismo, sent Venezuela to hell, and maintains it to this day, 2 decades later.

    • Do not give “Curious George” facts…..his head will explode, he will have a complete melt down and lock himself in his transgender bathroom, never to see light of day again.

  15. “rather than a friendly diplomacy, excluding—maybe—the Obama administration.”

    Obama’s friendly diplomacy? Is that what we on the right describe as his “drop the pants, bend over deeply, spread the cheeks, and say, put it here” diplomacy?

    I suspect so.

    • Obama the Drone Strike smiling assassin.

      542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians. As he reportedly told senior aides in 2011: “Turns out I’m really good at killing people.

      Leftist friendly diplomacy at its finest.

  16. Finally, the main reasons why the Kleptozuelan disaster may very well last for a loooong time:

    – About 80% of the people are by now complicit and/or corrupt and/or enchufados and/or ignorant, subservient zombies and/or helpless, too young/too old. The best, educated, real opponents are gone, you, me and about 1 million more. And the vast majority will not ever return to that hell-hole, unless there’s some juicy deal to handle from some hotel room.

    – The “international community” has other ways to handle tropical crap like Kleptozuela, they’ll deal with the Russians and the Chinese behind closed doors to mitigate their influence on the American continent. .

    – Too much money and special interests are behind the Massive Embezzzlement going on in Kleptozuela. Thousands of very powerful moguls, worldwide, the Ramirezes, the Derwicks, the Chinese and Cubans, the 2000 kleptozuelan “generals”, the entire ‘Armed Forces’ are corrupt assholes behing the Kleptozuelan debacle. They risk Jail if kicked out. Money talks, They’ll bribe everyone else. As they’ve been bribing most of the Kleptozuelan populace, at all levels, everywhere, antionally and internationally, the stolen moneies keep flowing around. Gold, minerals, finance deals, food deals, Remesas ($$$ Billions coming back to stabilize the Cubazuelan shit) – that’s what keeps ‘chavismo’ alive and kicking, stronger than ever.

    Because it ain’t ‘chavismo’ what destroyed Venezuela. It was greed, ignorance, abysmal lack of education, corruption. That’s where Chabestia came from, and Masburro too. That’s what sustains it. The absence of tough laws and punishment. The complicity and corruption of the MUDcrap ‘opposition’. The cancer is everywhere, public, private, it ain’t just “chavismo”.

    My bet is: Esa vaina se jodio. Unless some fierce military action brings an extinct Marcos Perez Jimenez clone back to life, to harness the corrupt tropical populace, educate it, and expel the thousands of white collar criminals worldwide, those with the real power. They are doomed to be Haitizuela, slowly turning into Chinazuela decade after decade, as Capitalism and better education slowly force their way in.

  17. The same lament I’ve been hearing since the 68’s, over and over – If 10% of the energy spent on this dialog was used to rebuild your country then there will be hope. Stop using the imperiaism excuse. All LatAm has been consumed by that and corruption, and lack leadership, and lack of gray mass in general. Please don’t mess with the USA, we can take care of ourselves. This country is the richest on earth and it goes like there is no possible stop. Do you understand micro and macroeconomics? By the way, what has paralyzed this country over the last few weeks is the election of Justice Kavanaugh. This afternoon should be all over with and will be back to normal. Meanwhile, the whining South of The Border is limitless and useless

  18. I kept scrolling up to the top of the page to see if I really was in CC. It certainly felt like I was reading an article in Aporrea. If the editors of CC really feel this way, they need to stop living in there own deluded alternate reality.

  19. KAVANAUGH!
    KAVANAUGH!
    KAVANAUGH!

    I finally feel free. Regardless of left attempts to destroy the US, this will put an end to it. Let’s celebrate while it last. Miami’s and California’s corruption watch out.

  20. ”Ignacio Ayala: You can call me Iggy. I study law at Universidad Católica Andrés Bello and —like Curious George— I’m a child”

    I really thought this was the joke. This is a child indeed. Hey, Iggy, please forgive me. I hope your parents are not reading this ridicule. But, apparently, the editor of CC didn’t mind exposing you to the public. You’re just one more ”malcriado” and must probably ”enchufado” too. Or a relative of someone within the CC editorial group.

    Please pick your bunny to find some peace and tranquility. But I trust you have a ”chupon”.

    One thing is certain, I’ll use this to show my grown-up children and grandchildren how not to act so stupid.

    I’m alerting my wife to make sure she knows even her Alma Matter has been taken over by the enemy

    I’m truly sorry

    That Ayala name sounds familiar, El Paraiso?

  21. I’m not surprised by the tone of this opinion piece. Look at the MUD parties. Which one would a reasonable person say is center-right?

    Latin America is very leftist. Which is why it will for a long time be a mess and it will not prosper.

    • The Latin American left is still mired in 1930’s Socialist Thought.
      All major Venezuelan political parties are members of Socialist International.

      Maria Corina Machado, to me, is the best known Right of Center politician in Venz today. Because she’s a woman, she faces additional hurdles men don’t face.

      And the one who should be the next president, but whose chances today are not as good as the others. Which are slim to none.

      If they all got behind her, unequivocally as possible for that “sarta de batequebraos”, the regime would have to confront a woman. Different calculus, who knows?

  22. We will never see Bachelet openly calling for a U.S. intervention. She was tortured by a right-wing dictatorship which was protected by the CIA…

    I agree with you that Bachelet will not call for US intervention. Moreover, there is no defense for her being tortured. None. That was an atrocity. However, “a right-wing dictatorship which was protected by the CIA” passes over some important historical facts. josepinera.org/articles has some informative articles on the Allende era.
    The “democratically elected” Allende had substantial opposition. From this link at the Piñera/articles page: Chile: How democracy was destroyed ( am not adding HTML as too many links will get stopped by the spam-meter), we find out that three weeks before the coup, on August 22 1973, the Chamber of Deputies passed a Resolution by a 63% majority ,an 81-47 vote, which accused Allende of repeated violations of Chilean law and the Constitution. Chile’s Salvador Allende years in eleven truths quotes part of the resolution.

    1.”The Allende government, from its very start, has been striving to obtain total power and use it to exert rigid economic and political control, thereby creating a totalitarian system.”

    (For a complete translation of the Resolution, put “destruction of Chile’s democracy” into a search engine. The resolution used to be on Piñera’s website.) The resolution went on to request the assistance of the Armed Forces to restore Constitutional government. Allende correctly stated that the resolution promoted a coup.
    In addition to the Chamber of Deputies, former President Frei and future President Aylwin supported the coup. Chile’s Salvador Allende years in eleven truths:


    3. “The truth is that what the Armed Forces and the Police did (in staging the coup) turned out to be a preventative measure before the Government itself staged a coup. With the armed militants, who had the enormous firepower of the (Allende’s) government at their disposal and the support of no less than 10,000 foreign radicals in the country, the Left aimed to create a communist dictatorship and probably would have succeeded.” [Patricio Aylwin, President of the Christian Democrat Party, La Prensa, October 19, 1973]…
    8. “The heart of the problem is that (Allende’s) minority government, presenting itself as a legal and peaceful path to socialism, had utterly resolved to install a totalitarian dictatorship. They were taking successive steps toward this end, leaving no doubt that in the year 1973 we were experiencing an absolutely abnormal form of government, just a few steps away from a full totalitarian dictatorship…. The Chamber of Deputies approved a Resolution warning the country that its Constitution and laws were being violated, and presenting an overwhelming list of cases that proved it…. We must therefore ask ourselves what is the cause and who is responsible for this break. In our opinion the entire
    responsibility lies with (Allende’s) Unidad Popular regime.” [Eduardo Frei, former Christian Democrat President of Chile, Letter to Mariano Rumor, President of the International Christian Democrats, November 8, 1973]

    The coup had substantial civilian support, a fact which most leftists would like to have swept under the rug.
    Granted, the politicians who supported the coup expected elections to be called within six months or less. They got a nasty surprise when the military fox they invited into the government henhouse refused to leave. Had the politicians known they would have had to wait 16 years for elections, would they have still supported the coup? Perhaps not. Probably not?

    Nonetheless, while the lefty narratives on Chile and Argentina are at least somewhat fact-free, they are the dominant narratives.

    • “Granted, the politicians who supported the coup expected elections to be called within six months or less. They got a nasty surprise when the military fox they invited into the government henhouse refused to leave. Had the politicians known they would have had to wait 16 years for elections, would they have still supported the coup? Perhaps not. Probably not?”

      When the country has been poisoned by the communist toxins, you’ll need to clean it for years before letting the leftist idiots to cast a vote and elect an imbecile that promises free stuff again.

      • The attitude of the military was apparently like this: “If you are going to call on us to right the ship of state, we are not going to leave until we are certain the job has been done. ”
        Regarding the intentions of the “democratically elected” Allende, Georgie Ann Geyer’s interviews with Allende have something to say about that. From page 97 of her autobiography, Buying the Night Flight:

        “Would a one-party state be good for Chile?” I asked him.
        And he answered, thoughtfully but surely, “No…no, not right away. It will take a while.”…..
        “If you are elected, will there be elections again?” I asked him. He paused. “You must understand,” he said, carefully but revealingly, “that by the next elections, everything will have changed.”

        How many believers in democracy think a one-party state will be good for a country?

  23. Iggy, allow me to explain why there,will be no American military intervention in Venezuela. The best example is when the police intervene in a marital dispute. Typically the husband engages in physical misconduct and causes bodily harm to his wife who calls the police. The police arrive to subdue the husband and end up fighting with both the husband and wife and even other family members. This is exactly what would happen in Venezuela and you Iggy would be among the first to turn on your American rescuers after of course the Americans had expended the lives of their soldiers at great personal and economic loss to subdue the Chavistas. It is simply not worth it for America to intervene because people like you want to have it both ways. please help us followed by cries of war crimes. Perhaps you can organize an international conference for leftists where you can discuss Venezuela’s problems over wine and cheese. Write me in ten years and let me know how that plan worked out for you.

  24. If i was looking at this from the American perspective, a coup seems like the logical thing to do, for a number of reasons:

    1) No dictatorship (that has managed to root itself deep into the entrails of the State) has abdicated power because of a popular uprising, not a single one, the notion that people who are too worried about what to eat TODAY, let alone tomorrow are going to fight back, puts to rest the fanciful notion of a “popular uprising”.

    2) Maduro and his cronies aren’t leaving power willingly because they know they’ll end up in a bodybag the moment they hand over power (a life behind bars is the best outcome for them), not exactly a pleasant choice for anyone in that position i might add.

    3) The country will implode sooner or later and if you think the migrant flows are bad now, just wait until say, Maduro gets shot, or something else brings the regime down, the flows are going to hit Syria-like proportions in no time.

    The best thing to do is what i call the Chile-Redux: Sack Maduro and his cronies, give the throne to some power hungry general or some such, get some “Chicago Boys” to manage the economy and get him to crack down on gangs/corruption/etc in exchange for the US turning a blind eye to his excesses, couple of years down the line when things have (mostly) settled down, arrange for elections and hand over power to whoever wins.

    Not perfect by any means, but it’s certainly a plan, unlike the dithering the Lima Group are engaging in.

  25. I guess the author is ignoring the fact that many people are simply opposed to wars because they are opposed to any kind of violence in general, rather than political ideologies. Hell, Castro communism was/is actually a very belligerent ideology and Chavismo (a derivative) has been violent from the very start.

    It is also well known “joke” that crimes committed by the Right are 10 times amplified when compared to the Left atrocities by the media and this blogger seems to continue that tradition.

    Now, since when this Bachelet, who is a single mom with two children, graduated in Medicine acquired (dunno with what time!? LOL) “superwoman powers” to become the”utmost authority” in geopolitics, economy, etc. Therefore should be the standard setter for Lat Am and Venezuela policy !?

    My dear Ignacio, Venezuela not only need a MILITARY intervention but more importantly an occupation given that the whole regime is corrupted to the core. Poison Maduro, Padrino and Cabello and you have achieve nothing. The Chavismo cancer still will go on, Chavez has been gone for years now, yet the regime continues and more totalitarian than ever.

    The best Venezuelans can do now is to ORGANIZE a strong support for a U.S. MILITARY intervention, this is what WE want regardless of what other LatAm politicians and foreign diplomats want.
    Weather the US will act (the only Democratic power capable of doing this) is another matter, but we have to promote it and support it.

    Other than that, I see no peaceful solution and we should just give up our “sovereignty” to Cuba, China or Russia inspired by their perfect record on human rights, freedom and democracy….

    Jesus !!!

    • Excellent post Toro!!! This is the honest truth.

      And as I said earlier, even if you are a dove, you just have to bite your tongue and let the hawks have their way on Venezuela. No ifs, ands or buts about it. The only way to bring these SCUM down or to the negotiation table is TO KEEP THE WAR DRUMS A BANGING!!! If you come under the discourse of “dialogue” they will just come to the table with another TRAMPA hid under their sleave that just buys them more time. Gotta keep the war drums a banging, zero negotiation, or this will never end. So f off doves!!! Shut the f up!!! And let real men with balls bring these scum to justice, or bring these scum with their tails between their legs to the “negotiation” table.

  26. I understand the author is an aspiring lawyer, and it took me five attempts to read the post due to the mischaracterizations contained therein. If any of the fundamental points had any basis in reality, we would be talking about Latin America’s “attempt at colonizing North America.” If the author is representative of the next generations of lawyers, we’re fucked.

  27. Well, the comments section here has already fallen into another round of CC Author vs. “El Imperio”/Trump, but what I was struck was coming at it from another way.

    I may be an American and a partisan of Trump, but I’m also a history nerd and a wargamer. And I was those things LOOOOOONG before Trump was on my radar and I will be those things for LOOOONG after he exits the stage. And looking at it from this way I couldn’t help but shake my head. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

    Let me go through the list…

    “The United States’ fear of losing power will unequivocally lead to the growth of the Left in Latin America. ”

    BULLSHIEEET!

    Firstly, the growth of the Left (or more broadly anti-American movements or policies, like the Nat’l Reorganization Process’s Falklands flip towards a pro-Soviet orientation or the Lopez Family’s 19th century Paraguayan Juche) was a LEADING indicator for US fears over its power and US interventions, not a Trailing one.

    Secondly, US intervention- especially in its most extreme forms- usually led to a curtailing of “the Left” in Hispanic America.

    Now, granted, this gets a bit confuzzled for a couple reasons. Firstly, the obvious fact that the US has been intervening in Hispanic America for long, LONG before the existence of what we would call “the modernleft” (usually with damaging effects for the government on the recieving end, whether it be Lopizta Paraguay, Imperial Brazil, or…Mexico, just Mexico).

    Secondly because the chronology can be more than a bit gnarled and hard to follow, especially in the heat of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (which I could argue featured a “Proto-Cold War” with Imperial Germany) and the full Cold War after WWII.

    And thirdly because grievances from previous interventions could and did act as a flag to rally around for decades or generations after.

    However, when you look closer at the chronology it bears this out fairly well. Guatamala in particular is a worthwhile example because so relatively little happened as far as overt Yankee interference.

    The “Revolutionary Period” of 1944-1951 saw Arvelo, Arbenz, and Arana oust the former dictatorship and its usual oligarchic support base, and embark on a series of reforms, mostly influenced by Arvelo’s “Spiritual Socialism”, with Arbenz representing the far left and Arana representing conservative democrats. This included some land reform, and the shellacking of that perpetual boogeyman, United Fruit.

    US Response: A wet fart. Or more accurately, a bunch of private concerns and some financing for Arana and oligarchic opposition but no direct influence.

    Then from 1951-1954 we have The Arbenz years. Arana dies under mysterious accidents and Arvelo hands power over to Arbenz, who forms a deep alliance with the Guatamalan Communist Party (taking orders directly from the Soviets) and ultimately begins soliciting aid from the Warsaw PAct. It doesn’t take long to realize why, because after the Supreme Court rejects several measures of his land reform as unconstitutional he engineers a purge of it.

    US Response; Operation PBSUCCESS, a revolt by the mostly conservative-to-reactionary military and other opposition members to overthrow Arbenz, with significant direct CIA support.

    And from 1954-1960 we have a more or less attempted return to the status quo of “Genteel” oligarchy backed, pro-US authoritarianism in which the military victors of PBSUCCESS established themselves in power and set about trying to achieve the (mutually exclusive as it turned out) goals of bringing peace or calm to the country on one hand, AND consolidating their own power by first neutering the opposition and increasingly those not explicitly tied to them. This is a problem because in addition to the Guatemalan left or the reasons for its existence not disappearing, the Military Chieftans start tearing at each other for power.

    But this is still a relatively Placid period; an interlude between PBSUCCESS in 1954 and the outbreak of civil war in the 1960’s. And true to form the US returns to a hands off role that prizes its own primacy but allows the local government to more or less (mis)manage its own affairs. Even to the point of sitting back as an internal coup takes place in 1958. But profound US influence returns when it becomes obvious that Surprise- Castro is a Communist who has managed to establish a hostile dictatorship just off the Florida Coast.

    So the US starts shopping around for places to launch a deniable operation to remove him. And they ultimately find a buyer in the Ydigoras dictatorship, which is happy to exchange basing rights for “La Brigada” in exchange for some kickbacks.

    The early 1960’s mark the start of Guatamala’s great civil war. In particular, it tends to be traced to this attempted military revolt by dissident officers in 1960, angered over being marginalized in the spoils system because of their politics. But this relatively traditional pronunciamento failed, they went into hiding and radicalized. There’s an old saying that if you can’t solve a problem, widen it. And that’s something the losers of the 1960 move did, riding on discontent with the military regimes and US policy as well as the US’s enemies like Castro and the Soviets.

    So by the middle of the 1960’s, you see the rise of guerilla warfare in country. which actually forces the US to sit up, take notice, and shovel support to the government.

    Nicaragua’s also useful, but for the opposite reasons. It is by far one of the countries with the most direct Yankee interference, and so it’s useful because we can see the cycle play out several times.

    And after the initial shenanagins with William Walker, you can see US influence almost tidally locked to the influence of the party that is viewed as Anti-American; first the PD, then the Sandinistas (first Snadino’s personal sect of PD, and then the FLSN).

    When Zelaya led the PD to consolidating a government over the course of the 1890’s and 1900’s, the US got involved more and more. When a military rising took place in 1899 in the Bluefields over (again) breaking up United Fruit Co assets and removing US basing rights, the US deployed the USMC and fought a pitched battle, crushed the rebels, and left.

    When a Conservative revolt breaks out against the Liberal/Democratic Party in 1909,, the US supports the rebels. First by inflluence and arms, and then after the Knox Note by direct arms. As a result, the Conservatives’ Adolfo Diaz takes power.

    When Diaz faced a revolt from the PD and dissident Conservatives in 1912 he asked for US support in quelling the revolt, marking the start of continuous US combat operations in Nicaragua for close to 20 years, including their clash with the (in)famous Sandino himself.

    Heck, when the US made plans to withdraw from Nicaragua in 1925 and was in the process of doing so, the outbreak of revolts (or sometimes just plain apolitical looting) led to a redeployment.

    Et Cetera. Et Cetera. Et Cetera. All the way down to the rise of the Neo-Sandinistas and their establishment as an explicitly Communist dictatorship over the ashes of the Somozoa family dictatorship that the US had helped prop up in the 1930’s as a counterbalance against Sandino.

    Now, this is one dimension of US influence, particularly focused on military and diplomatic efforts. But obviously, commercial ties and peaceful diplomatic contact continued well beyond these little points (and thus so did tensions from them). But this helps get my point.

    The rise of the Left (or more generally of factions deemed hostile to US interests) in these countries usually came Before, and often Directly Led To, US intervention in these countries. Or more acute intervention in any case.

    And you’ll notice this pattern holds generally, no matter where you look in the Hemisphere, be it Mexico, or Argentina. The US has generally been playing a containment or maintenance game in Hispanic America, even during the point of its most acute and brutal influence. Let alone during the Cold War era.

    And- this is a key one- you’ll notice that in at least some cases such as Panama, the Dominican republic, and so on, prolonged US influence crippled the domestic left for decades afterwards.

    “On one hand, U.S. international relations have relied on its military and economic power, rather than a friendly diplomacy,”

    It’s rested on all three. And in fact it has been leaning faaaar more towards the latter two over the past century.

    Alright everybody, pop quiz time:

    Do you think that the United States would have allowed Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez to be things if it operated in the fashion that it did under Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson?

    Ok, those of you with your hands up, please ball them into a fist and SMACK yourselves in the head because ya’ll are a bunch of ignoramuses.

    This is not meant to glamorize a supposed “Golden Age” of the Marines stopping off at lmost every port in the Caribbean and Foggy Bottom meddling with cabinets like normal people change buttons. But it does emphasize a POINT.

    And that POINT is that the rise of Chavez and Castro was NOT made possible- no matter what people may say- by “El Imperio”‘s activist foreign policy. It was in fact made possible by “El Imperio”‘s decision to RETREAT from said activist foreign policy in favor of a more “Live and Let Live”, collaborationist approach with the locals. Or at least some, favored locals.

    In fact, part of the reason for the Hispanic American left’s resurgance hasn’t been “El Imperio”‘s meddling in the hemisphere (which admittedly has often been unsavory and sometimes disasterous). It was the decision to WITHDRAW or RECONFIGURE the form in which its influence was conducted, with a prototype under Taft’s “Dollar Diplomacy” and a more fully realized one under FDR’s “Good Neighbor Policy” which is probably the doctrine that shapes today’s US policy towards HisAmerica the most.

    In it, the US would take a more hands off approach. By no means sacrificing its interests in the sphere of influence, but by and large taking a less and less hands on or interventionist approach. When possible, Hispanic American states would be left to sort out their own businesses together, the US would stop carte blanche support of US private interests like United Fruit Co, the Navy and Marines would deploy less, and in general the US would prefer propping up friendly (or “friendly”) regimes where they existed or supporting friendly local actors (or even allied non-local ones like the UK in the Falklands) when they didn’t. It was only when such local auxiliaries were not in a role to play that theUS would wade in with conventional forces, as was the case in Panama and Grenada. Compare/Contrast the number of USMC combat missions in this hemisphere by the USMC from-say- the 1890’s to the 1950’s, versus from then to now and you can get some idea.

    This meant that Hispanic American states- or at least the governments controlling them- would be left alone more and have greater effective sovereignty over their decisions. Which also meant that the threshold for sending in “Team Marines” became higher, usually to high. So when Castro entrenched or Chavez started nationalizing foreign companies, Foggy Bottom more or less shrugged and publically said something about self-determination. And privately opted to pursue less invasive measures like supporting local allies or trying to assassinate people rather than invading.

    This allowed things like the flowering of Betancourt’s Republic, Costa Rica under Figueres, and so on.

    But it also allowed Castro and co- as well as other rogues’ galleries like Fujimori- to run amok.

    ” excluding—maybe—the Obama administration; ”

    Riiight.

    Because apparently Taft, FDR, JFK, and so on never existed.

    • Part 2

      ” on the other hand, the Latin American left wing’s main narrative has always been based on the fight against “El Imperio” and its colonialist practices.”

      Which gets me to a point. A wise man once wrote that the House of Bourbon had Learnt Nothing and Forgotten Nothing from the French Revolution. Which led to its demise later.

      I would say the same about the Hispanic American Left.

      HOWEVER, I think this is being too generous. Because I’m PRETTY sure that if I hauled Gabriel Garcia-Marquez (more on that scumsucker later) from hell and quizzed him about Cipriano Castro and his Dutch blockade or the US’s interventions in Guatamala and Nicaragua, I’d get a response.

      The truth is, the standard complaint of US imperialism and exploitation DOES have merit. As a patriotic American I’ll be the first to mention it. But it’s also one dimensional and usually involves a selective remembrance of history, or a woeful desire to ignore the other side of the coin. Like what tends to emerge or not emerge when the Caliban of the North wades in.

      “Today, the incarnation of American fear is sitting in the Oval Office. ”

      *Sigh* Here we go again.

      “Thus, the left wing’s narrative is being well-fed and nurtured.”

      The big question is W-H-Y?!?!

      W-H-Y?

      it’s been fifty years since Castro went full Commietard (NEVER go Full Commietard).

      It’s been 90 years since Sandino.

      And it’s been nearly thirty since Chavismo and Neo-Sandinismo nurtured themselves into power.

      La Violencia’s long, ugly shadow has stretched across Columbia for 70 years.

      And of course, this year marks the 101st anniversary of the Bolshevik coup.

      So there should be ABSOLUTELY no excuse for recognizing there are threats other than El Imperio around. And that they can be at least as devastating as the latter ever did.

      Also, please. By all means. Give me a list of Hispanic American governments Trump has overthrown. Let’s compare them to that of-say- Wilson.

      Go on. I’ll wait.

      “We see it in Mexico, Bolivia and Venezuela. ”

      You mean to tell me that politicians like to pass the blame on an “Other” that can easily be scapegoated or demonized?

      And that totalitarian or authoritarian ones like Morales and Maduro like doing it more?

      Shocking. I could not IMAGINE!

      ““The Wall” gave AMLO the ammunition for an electoral victory; Evo is given a golden opportunity to ramble on Twitter as an answer to threats of invasion; Maduro’s speech at the UNGA had his favorite gravy: Operación Cóndor. ”

      Ok everybody, are you ready?

      Let’s study a bit of military strategy 101.

      Question One: Did the US build a full border wall on its Mexican border between 1865 and 1920? Y/N?

      Question Two: A wall is a primarily Defensive/Offensive measure (Circle One).

      Question Three: How many border walls impaired the deployment of the USMC to the BLuefields over fiftysomething times in the past century and a half?

      OK put your pencils down.

      Answer to the first question: No. Duh.

      Answer to the second question: A wall is primarily a DEFENSIVE measure. Not an offensive one. In fact, it often impairs offensive operations by the side manning it. It is a literal, physical declaration that “We don’t want any force to go through this area in the immediate future, EVEN OURSELVES.”

      And notably, this includes ones built by aggressive regimes like the NSDAP of Germany. Its Siegfried Line in the West served as a fixed position that let the Reich man its defenses with relatively few men, while its main army pivoted Around it to invade the Low Countries. It was a fixed position to tie up enemy troops and then maneuver around.

      And in contrast, the building of a wall like the Great Ming Walls of China marked a MASSIVE retreat from attempts by the building state to influence politics outside of them.

      Thirdly: I’m going to let you guys figure this one out for yourselves.

      So now let’s take this all together.

      The Author insists that the embodiment of American fear sits in the White House.

      To which I ask, Why?

      Operation Condor and the history of US Intervention was marked by, well, US Meddling in Hispanic American foreign affairs.

      A wall is an ISOLATIONIST policy.

      It is a declaration not of aggression, invasion, or the like, but of retrenchment and DEFENSE Again, even ones BUILT to facilitate aggression elsewhere like the Siegfried line and the far more ancient Dannevirke that protected the Danish Vikings’ flank from the Franks while their crews raided as far as the Tuscan Coast.

      So why the farqing HECK are you people getting in a tizzy about an ISOLATIONIST US President as the embodiment of 150some years of El Imperio?!?

      Ok, you can make an argument that he is an extension of it. Mkay, Fine.

      But more of one than Freaking Teddy? Woodrow? The rest?

      Sorry, but no.

      “Every day, the left-wing brings back memories of thousands of murders, tortures and disappearances, the result of the CIA’s direct instructions in the 80s right-wing dictatorships.”

      This is stupid on several levels.

      But the most notable one is by pointing out “Yeah, because if there’s one thing the CIA has shown SUUUCH a great job at, it’s micro-scale managing of its allies.

      By the way, Che got deported and interrogated like the CIA wanted after being captured, right?”

      And secondly, the idea that right wing dictatorships of any stripe had some kind of issue ordering their own murders is ludicrous. Often times on a far more (often WAAAAY Far more, like the Argentine Junta) expansive scale than El Imperio wanted.

      Now, sure, the US did often request or order the deaths of people that were carried out by their allies/clients in Hispanic America. But that isn’t what the phrasing of this sentence is.

      Because it manages to do the Farqking Ludicrous.

      The naked *INFANTILIZATION* of people like Stroessner Pinochet, Trujillo, and ultimately even those further afield like Videla, Galtieri, and Noriega. That these people somehow have their full length of crimes attributable to the CIA. That these people needed (or in many cases even wanted) CIA sanction for their wetwork.

      Sorry, but no. This is ludicrous. And it undercuts the second part of your article giving lip service to the idea that “Oh no, we can’t just blame the CIA, we have to take responsibility!”

      OK, THEN START DOING IT!

      Because these dictators were their own political players, acting usually in concert with the CIA for their own reasons (and sometimes even acting against it).

      “We carry a burden, a heritage that will never be forgotten—and shouldn’t. ”

      You’re doing a heck of a job doing that right now.

      “Operación Cóndor was the fight against communism that turned America into what it was trying to get rid of: a murderous superpower that prevailed by force, and not by freedom.”

      Wrong.

      Operacion Condor was sold as a fight against Communism. But how it ended up was as much of a fight against Communism as the Holy League of the 19th century was against Republicanism or Revolution.

      Sure, it involved fighting against it (often savagely), but only as one of several targets. Including non-Communist domestic opposition. Often uncontrollably, as an increasingly irate US found out.

      It’s worth noting that the name itself didn’t even originate with the US. It was coined by Pinochet’s DINA. And yes, Pinochet was one of the US’s most loyal Hispanic American allies (even into cases most broke ranks with it like the Falklands war). But he was also his own independent player who was more than willing to act independently or pitch ideas up to his patron.

      Operation Condor is best understood as a self-help group for Junta, with US sponsorship(for the most part). Not only was most of the killing and imprisonment done by these dictatorships, most of it was *PLANNED* by them as well.

      Not all by any means. The US had more than its fair share of it. (Though on the other hand, there were also several cases where groups slipped the leash and ran outside the control of not just the US Government, but also their own domestic one. The Guatemalan Civil War is a great place to look at for this).

      It’s ALSO worth noting that Operacion Condor was also a product of-again- US commitment to TONE DOWN its use of force in Hispanic America. It is most definitely a child of the Good Neighbor Policy, of letting one’s friends “deal” with “their matters” rather than quickly sending the USMC.

      “The United States did prevent communism from rising in the 80s but at an enormous cost.”

      More enormous than what we’ve seen elsewhere?

      ” Today, Operación Cóndor in Latin America is a cautionary tale against an armed intervention. ”

      Because apparently people are so dumb they can’t even grasp the meaning of the term ARMED INTERVENTION anymore.

      Because Operacion Condor was not armed US (or French) intervention, at least outside of a few very select special operations. It was INTELLIGENCE work. Carried out by both Hispanic American secret police and US/French Intel, as a SUBSTITUTE for Western Allied armed intervention. Not as a SUPPLEMENT TO it.

      There’s a reason why the list of Marine combat deployments in His. America in the 1980’s is quite, Quite low.

      But apparently, we can’t eve get THAT!

      “The Operación Cóndor was based on a simple premise: if the CIA helps the right-wing, Russia won’t be able to gain power.”

      Wrong.

      Operacion Condor was based on even similar premises.

      Firstly, that authoritarian dictators like keeping power. Left wing ones, Centrist Ones, and yes the right wing ones that dominated Continental Hispanic America after the fall of Peron.

      Secondly, that many of these dictators had the same enemies or kinds of enemies. Some of whom had made inroads to cooperation with each other. So ergo, it made sense to unite against them.

      The US’s main role in this case was as facilitator, linking alreayd-murderous and sometimes already-connected dictators and helping them pool resources.

      • Part 3

        “So, the CIA planned and executed coups with an impressive success rate.”

        Honestly, as an amateur historian who knows more about the CIA than most, it isn’t that impressive.

        “We saw Pinochet, Videla, Stroessner, Fujimori and Brazil’s long-standing military dictatorship grow strong due to American backing. ”

        True. But again, usually without direct American armed intervention like what “Team Marines” propose.

        Again, anybody here want to think that Pinochet could have played NEARLY as large a role as he did if the US government’s response to Allende was “Dispatch a Carrier Group and a Marine Task Force; I want to drink Coffee in Santiago next week”?

        Yeah. Not nearly as much.

        “But to look to the North and blame the U.S for our deaths would be the denial of what Carlos Rangel said so many times in “Del buen salvaje al buen revolucionario”:”

        It’s also denying it on a much more profound level.That this entire situation wasn’t Caused by El Imperio.

        Almost all of it was INFLUENCED by it at some point or another, and large chunks of it were caused.

        But let’s not kid ourselves. The idea that cases like the rise of the PD or FLSN were due to El Imperio meddling doesn otwash.

        ” We have an inability—or lack of willingness—to accept the responsibility for our mistakes and our tragedies. So, we look to the North.”

        Pay attention to this.

        Because it’s gonna get REALLY farqing ironic in a few sentences.

        “This could not be better synthesized by anyone other than García Márquez himself:”

        Garcia-Marquez?

        The scumbag who- among other things- spread RACIST GARBAGE blood libel about the Gurkhas during the Falklands and who pandered to Castro and co?

        Screw that goon.

        No, seriously-Seriously. F* him.

        I do not deny his merits as an author. What I deny are his merits as a human being, because frankly all too often he played the role of Striecher to thugs. And not even the “right” kind of thugs like Castro, but even to the National Reorganization Process. Freaking Galtieri and the people who would chuck dissidents out of HIGH ALTITUDE BOMBERS.

        That does not mean that his writing is false or that all points he raise are wrong. That ain’t how logic works. But he is still an odious human being- even if not Nearly as bad as any given dictator pro-or-anti American.

        ““We were ready to absolve the CIA of all blame. ”

        I’m not, bu let’s move on.

        “In fact, with all of its power and money, the CIA could not have accomplished a thing without the connivance of the governing classes of Latin America, without the venality of our civil servants, and without the limitless corruption possibilities of our politicians.””

        You see what he did there?

        DO. YOU. SEE. WHAT. HE. DID. THERE?!?

        “Connivance of the governing classes… venality of our own civil servants… limitless corruption possibilities of our politicians.”

        NOT mentioned at any point in this entire thing:

        From whence these people emerged.

        Or who provides the bedrock that these goons built.

        That isn’t to say that Garcia-Marquez has a point. He does, all too well. But he misses an even greater one. And there’s something PROFOUND about a man of the so called Hispanic American left who was willing to CARRY WATER for *THE. MOST. MURDEROUS RIGHT WING DICTATORSHIP IN THIS HEMISPHERE*- the National Reorganization Process-managing to ignore any responsibility by Civil Society and people like him.

        There’s an old saying that people get the government they deserve.

        I REJECT this saying, because I do not beieve anyone deserves to live under regimes like Chavismo, Videlismo, Fascism, or Communism.

        However, I DO accept the basic idea that people will get the government they tolerate. And Garcia-Marquez’s willingness to tolerate the “right” kind of tyrant in service of his overriding grudge against the US Or the idea that it could play any beneficial role in this hemisphere?

        THAT’S a part of your problem right there!

        And it looks like it is something the author of this piece agrees with.

        What people don’t like to admit is that Operation Condor was uniquely cruel, but it was not unique or unprecedented.

        It was a natural outgrowth of the same drives that created the Good Neighbor Policy. Of the OCIAA, and later the OAS. The desire by the US to both safeguard the Western Hemisphere (And its dominance there) but also to put the relationship on a more equitable footing.

        The difference of course, being that the former are viewed as largely positive developments and rightfully so, encompassing both Hispanic American democrats and despots. While Operacion Condor was a purely despotic measure and rightfully condemned.

        But that doesn’t change the fundamentals or why it came to be. It also doesn’t change the fact that US Intervention will remain one of the tools in the US’s kit, even if one it is not inclined to use. It also does not change the fact that its influence can be used for good and to undermine dictatorships (as it did during the 1970’s-1990’s at various times) and bolster democracy.

        Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

        And now I’m not surprised why I get the feeling we’ll be looking at a continental Castroville for the foreseeable future.

        • A continental Castroville for the foreseeable future is surely a distinct possibility, but its corrosive effects on its neighbors/LA Region will make the future cost/effort of dealing with it/its consequences immeasurably greater than dealing with it sooner, rather than later–and, it will have to be dealt with (hopefully, self-correcting internally, but, if not, goodbye “Good Neighbor”….

          • @NET. I can hope so, but we’ll see. Just because rationally there is a cost/benefit ratio in favor of lancing the boil Now rather than waiting for Later is no guarantee that’s what is gonna happen.

            It is the rational decision, sure. But humans have never been perfectly rational.

    • like the Nat’l Reorganization Process’s Falklands flip towards a pro-Soviet orientation.
      This occurred before the Falklands War. The Soviet Union became Argentina’s leading market for wheat exports in 1980. The Carter Administration led a grain embargo against the Soviet Union, in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Argentine Junta said, no thanks. NYT 1981:ARGENTINA AND SOVIET ARE NO LONGER JUST BUSINESS PARTNERS

      The Soviet market is Argentina’s principal outlet for exports of grain and beef and Russians are assisting Argentina’s hydroelectric and nuclear energy programs. The two countries often ally with each other in international organizations against what they perceive as interference in their human rights policies. Moscow is now looking to broaden the relationship to include weapons sales. ……
      Soviet grain purchases quite simply have saved Argentina from economic disaster. Almost a quarter of the country’s total export earnings last year came from the sale of grain to the Soviet Union. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan – which evoked a Washington-led grain embargo that Buenos Aires shunned – came as Argentina was being cut out of its traditional European markets by Common Market barriers.

      • Indeed. That was probably the start. coupled with the junta’s refusal (from US pressure) to dial down the scope of its imprisonments or killings (Wot wuz zat about them being ordered to do it by the CIA?), or to diminish its expansionist plans on other US clients (like Chile and Uruguay) and Britain’s sovereign territory in the South Atlantic.

        All these pursuits were absolutely at ends with American policy. So the Junta broke with it and realligned behind the Soviets, curiously enough. Because it suited their interests to do so.

        And they had no shortage of idiot barking seals like Gabriel Garcia-Marquez or many Hispanic American national governments jumping up to applaud them for it, particularly after they invaded the Falklands. Even if it meant ignoring Videla and co’s Holocaustic aspirations towards Argentina’s domestic left wingers.

        And people wonder why I view Garcia-Marquez as a scumbag human being who does not offer much in the way of helpful analysis….

        • In my initial comment, I should have pointed out that the main reason the Junta was so willing to thumb its nose at the US was because of President Carter’s vehement denunciations of the Junta’s repeated violations of human rights. President Carter did the right thing.

    • The “Revolutionary Period” of 1944-1951 saw Arvelo, Arbenz, and Arana oust the former dictatorship and its usual oligarchic support base, and embark on a series of reforms, mostly influenced by Arvelo’s “Spiritual Socialism”, with Arbenz representing the far left and Arana representing conservative democrats. This included some land reform, and the shellacking of that perpetual boogeyman, United Fruit.
      US Response: A wet fart. Or more accurately, a bunch of private concerns and some financing for Arana and oligarchic opposition but no direct influence.

      The Central American Crisis Reader, a compilation of of various documents on Central America, has an interesting document regarding Arbenz and the US. Arbenz is talking with a US government rep- the ambassador? Arbenz is complaining about the US being against Arbenz because he nationalized United Fruit land and properties in Guatemala. The reply from the US rep is that nationalization is not a problem per se. Bolivia nationalized the tin producers in its 1952 revolution without any complaint from the US. The complaint from the US about Arbenz, he went on to say, is not nationalization, but the presence of Communists in his government. Memories of the salami tactics in Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European countries were still fresh.

      My understanding is that the CIA, with minimal effort -something like 200 people and a small aircraft- did finance the coup against Arbenz. Che Guevara was in Guatemala at the time of the coup. One lesson he took from Guatemala to Cuba was to get rid completely of Batista’s army.

      • @Boludo Tejano Thanks for the link. I didn’t have that, but I had read some of the documents.

        And I knew damn well that nationalization of the United Fruit Co territory wasn’t the issue. In fact, it’s telling that the Eisenhower Admin generally sacrificed United Fruit and other American businesses on the altar of good relations with Hispanic America’s governments, including Cuba. The problem was that Arbenz went far beyond social dem rhetoric or nationalization and into buddying up with the Communists, up to and including arms shipments.

        That’s what convinced the US he could not stay even when they tolerated Arvelo’s rule. And while looking around for a cheapie option that didn’t involve sending in the Marines, they sided with an oligarchic-leaning military and other politicians. Who generally went with what they knew after the shooting: An authoritarian kleptocracy.

        The CIA Did indeed help finance a coup against Arbenz, but that was partially because the military was already priming. In particular, Arbenz’s purge of the Supreme Court was a big warning sign to them.

  28. Please don’t write anymore. Don’t you see Iggy is a child. STOP.

    Who cares about the shithole we’re protected. Kavanaugh was chosen and the Supreme Court will never ever support legislation to waste lives of our children in Venezuela.

  29. apples and oranges, Venezuela, hasn’t had a successful coup since perez jimenez in 1948, the keystone plotters of 02, shouldn’t be put anywhere near, they missed the lesson with Noriega before the intervention in 1989, now Chavez was part of the red flag guerillas, that the us government helped foreclose their takeover in the the 70s and 80s, Condor was a reaction to the Cuban tricontinental coordination, that began in 1966, if not earlier, one two three Vietnams, what does this have to do with the price of arepas?

  30. Iggy’s comfort kevel is left and likely has been well schooled in its anti American rhetoric. So let him and his crowd of fellow left folks work this out. The sad thing is that even if lightening struck snd Chavismo fell Iggy and his crowd would adopt romantic but stale leftwing policies that will scar Venezuela for generations to come. That despite the fact that Venezuela was born in the new world, peopled by immigrants and blessed by natural resources and fertile farm land. Sort of like the US. Maybe a dose of freedom mixed with some capitalism might work just as well in the south as it does in the north. What do you think Iggy. Your young, think outside the box. Dont be afraid of your peers and teachers. They made Venezuela just exactly what it is. Do you like what you see? Its your choice.

  31. I really hope Iggy read the comment section for his compete and total prison ass rape by the negro de whatsapp without lube.

    Iggy, you got it handed to you in the CCS comment section. Please respond!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All of your childish ideas were completely rejected by a group of people who really know what is going on not only in Venezuela but geopolitical as well. Please try to publish BS like this in VenezuelaAnalysis next time.

  32. We saw Pinochet, Videla, Stroessner, Fujimori and Brazil’s long-standing military dictatorship grow strong due to American backing.
    The basic problem is that the man on horseback has had substantial support in Latin America ever since independence- and thus also during rule by Spain. If the US supports the man on horseback, it is damned for suppressing democracy. If the US does not support the man on horseback, it is damned for interference in sovereign affairs. Consider the outcries against the US for the limited actions it has taken against the Chavista-military dictatorship of Venezuela.

    Pinochet: The Chamber of Deputies, by a 81-47 (63%) vote, passed a resolution that, among other things, called for the Armed Forces to do its Constitutional duty against Allende, violator of the Constitution and laws of the Chilean state. Invitation to a coup, indeed. All former living Presidents (Frei, Alessandri, Videla) supported the coup, as did future President Aylwin. But blame it on the Gringos.

    Videla. There was a coup in 1930. There was a coup in 1943. The military government that began in 1943 leaned towards the Axis and was rather anti-Semitic in its behavior. One can hardly blame the CIA- or its predecessor the OSS – for those coups. Juan Peron, a principal actor in the 1943 coup, was later elected. His autocratic ways led to his being deposed in a coup in 1955. Live by the sword….
    Peron was later elected in 1973, and died in office. His widow Isabel became President, and was toppled in a coup in 1976.
    Jacobo Timerman, a prominent publisher and journalist, supported the 1976 coup. When he later published articles condemning the Junta for human rights violations, he was imprisoned, tortured, and later released. Neither President Ford, who recognized the Junta in 1976, nor Jacobo Timerman, who supported the coup that removed Isabel, anticipated the murderous tactics the Junta would employ. President Carter denounced in no uncertain terms the Junta’s violations of human rights. Reagan’s support of Great Britain in the Falklands War was instrumental in the fall of the Junta.

    Fujimori. Peru had a military Socialist- might we say Chavista- government from 1968 to 1980. Is the United States to blame for that? Fujimori, for all his subsequent autocratic tendencies, does deserve credit for how Peru changed when he was in office. Fujimori inherited a country ravaged by Sendero Luminoso, MRTA, and hyperinflation. Comandante Gonzalo was captured hyperinflation was stopped.

    Ignacio, your grasp of history is rather incomplete, but that you have read Del Buen Salvaje is to your credit. One of my all time favorite books.

    • The following book on Chile is informative and also free for the downloading from the Internet Archive.Out of the Ashes: Life, Death & Transfiguration of Democracy in Chile 1933-1988.

      Another good source, but not free, is Collier’s and Sater’s A History of Chile, 1808–2002.

      Tanya Harmer’s “Allende’s Chile and the Inter-American Cold War” reminds me of the adage, “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Harmer interprets nearly all the events in Chile from a Cold War perspective, and does a fairly good job of presenting the Allende years in that context. However, her Cold War interpretation overwhelms internal events in Chile. For example, Harmer writes:

      Of course, the mistake the Nixon administration made in Chile was to disregard Allende’s unbending commitment to constitutional government and the anomaly of La Vía Chilena.

      If Allende had an “unbending commitment to constitutional government,” then why did the Chamber of Deputies accuse him of repeated and systematic violations of the Constitution? Harmer also ignores Allende’s permitting MIR’s armed takeovers of farm land in southern Chile. From José Piñera:How Allende Destroyed Democracy in Chile there is information about Allende’s conflicts with the Supreme Court.

      The Allende administration had developed a most unusual juridical theory of “legal loopholes,” by means of which it had embarked upon the nationalization of a large number of private businesses of all sizes. In 1973 the Supreme Court reproached him for assuming powers belonging to that body, which resulted in an acrimonious exchange of letters….
      Allende, in a public speech a few days later, responded in this way: “In a time of revolution, political power has the right to decide, at the end of the day, whether or not judicial decisions correspond with the higher goals and historical necessities of social transformation, which should take absolute precedence over any other consideration; consequently, the Executive has the right to decide whether or not to carry out the verdicts of the Judicial Branch.”

      According to Allende, revolutionary goals trumped following Chilean law.Which points out that Harmer was grossly mistaken when she wrote about “Allende’s unbending commitment to constitutional government.” Harmer should have paid more attention to Chile itself, as opposed to Chile as a pawn of the Cold War.

  33. If every Venezuelan who can afford to dropped EVERYTHING and flew back immediately to participate in peaceful protests.

    If every Venezuelan who fled to a comfortable middle class lifestyle gave it up and put their own life on the line.

    If Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador and Mexico take military and political responsibility for giving an ultimatum and following through.

    Hell, this could have happened years ago but it’s never too late. The elites of Venezuela gave up on it’s people long ago, but they can still repent and give their life for the future generations.

    No shit, leftists and anti-establishment were murdered and silenced for 50 years. Did you really expect these people to give up power easily?

    I love reading these posts, but really these should be the ONLY posts on this website. And your commenters for the most part should be shot.

    • @Poder Escualido Let me be absolutely frank. “If every Venezuelan who can afford to dropped EVERYTHING and flew back immediately to participate in peaceful protests.

      If every Venezuelan who fled to a comfortable middle class lifestyle gave it up and put their own life on the line.”

      We’d probably see a re-run of the last time this happened.

      Peaceful protests may trouble the regime, but it does not allow them to is often it the slightest damn. And even among would-be turncoats inside the regime there is a climate of fear because the Chavistas can apply FAR more coercive pressure to their necks than peaceful protests ever can. Nobody wants to end up like Oscar Perez.

      And even fewer people want to wind up like the Bunker Plotters, when not only did they get tortured and killed, but their families started getting put up on meathooks.

      I highly suggest people read Turtledove’s “The Last Article”, because it details the limitations of peaceful protest in the face of evil. He’s also a great writer to boot. But the bottom line is that fighting SMART is more important than fighting HARD.

      No, I do think Venezuelans should drop more and go to struggle for their country and its future. But I don’t think it can afford to be peaceful.

      “If Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador and Mexico take military and political responsibility for giving an ultimatum and following through.

      Hell, this could have happened years ago but it’s never too late. The elites of Venezuela gave up on it’s people long ago, but they can still repent and give their life for the future generations.”

      Agreed there.

      But frankly?

      I still have to emphasize.

      Don’t count on my fellow Gringos.

      Don’t count on the OAS.

      Don’t count on “the Elite.”

      If they help you, good. But you have to be prepared to go it alone.

      No meager feat.

      “No shit, leftists and anti-establishment were murdered and silenced for 50 years. Did you really expect these people to give up power easily?”

      Indeed.

      “I love reading these posts, but really these should be the ONLY posts on this website. And your commenters for the most part should be shot.”

      Yeah?

      Well, like I said. Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. The author of this post engaged in what I can only call historical maldiagnosis. His proposals- if put into effect- would just get us RIIIIGHT back where we are. And the fact that he unthinkingly praised Garcia-Marquez (the guy who sided with the most murderous of the Condor dictatorships in order to spite the Gringos) underlines it.

      And as for shooting us?

      Funny.

      I have an AR-15, as well as a few others, some ammunition, and basic training in its use and infantry tactics.

      Come and try to shoot me.

    • I’m afraid I agree with Turtler on this. The time for peaceful has passed.

      Coming back means confronting the colectivos first and foremost.

      Bailoterapia aint gonna do for this. The Marines that come are going to have to be dressed in Yellow, Blue and Red and not the Stars and Stripes.

      Problem is, as shown by Oscar Perez and Caraguiapano, everyone is looking elsewhere to see who’s going to do the heavy lifting. And when one man does emerge no one lifts a hand to help.

      Castroville a la vista

      • When OP/et.al. were being massacred down the mountain, even by a small tank, the small “Pueblo” gathering up on the road entrance did not complain/protest, except for lack of food. The OP hunt spanned 2 weeks/involved several thousand armed men, in an area 60 square kms. approximately. No individuals/groups on their own initiative are going to immolate themselves for an impoverished/ignorant Pueblo that cannot/will not defend themselves. Only vital geopolitical interests (prevention of Russian/Chinese/narco-terrorist/Castro-Communist spread) can save Venezuela.

  34. Thank God the Brazilians have shown they are sick and tired of the leftist corruption and are voting en mass for the right-wing.

    • And the commies around the world are all like: “Why the hell are those Brazilians voting for a racist, mysoginist, facist, nazist, pig etc, etc, are they crazy? Have they gone totally nuts?”

      DUDE, WE JUST DON’T WANT TO BE VENEZUELA 2.0!

      BOLSONARO COULD EVEN BE MUSSOLINI HIMSELF, IF THAT’S THE PRICE TO PAY FOR NOT ENDING UP EATING FROM THE TRASH BIN, THEN BE IT.

      That’s what the left does, they traumatize people!

      Haddad says that Maduro is a good leader and that Venezuela is destroyed because of Trump!

      Again, we would elect fucking Mussolini to not have Maduro’s buddy as our leader.

  35. It’s funny to see the usual hysterical chumps braying “There won’t be intervention NEVER EVER in Venezuela because it’s a socialist shithole and its people deserve to die because they’re so stupid! Wwwaaaaaaahhhh!” when the article is precisely anohter of those “You’re fucked forever, Venezuela” articles.

  36. We saw…. Fujimori… grow strong due to American backing.

    From The Carnegie Endowment (September 2000): The Clinton Record on Democracy Promotion.

    In Peru, the administration has clashed sharply with President Alberto Fujimori over his manipulation of the presidential elections. [pg 3]

    The administration has spoken out clearly and often on the importance of democracy, helped head off coup threats in Guatemala, Paraguay, and Ecuador, sponsored aid programs to shore up shaky transitions, and tried to push the Organization of American States to take an active role in democracy promotion. Yet the democracy component of U.S. policy in Latin America is hardly seamless. Across most of the 1990s, for example, the United States maintained close ties to President Fujimori, despite his anti-democratic tendencies, because of his cooperative stance on U.S. anti-narcotics efforts.Nevertheless, even many Latin Americans long hostile to U.S. involvement in their countries’ internal affairs acknowledge that the United States is now, on balance, a pro-democratic force in Latin America. [pg 4]

    In Peru this year, for example, the forthright election monitoring carried out by the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center in the run-up to the first round of presidential balloting provided the State Department with a strong basis for taking a tough line on President Fujimori’s manipulation of the process. In some cases, however, low policy quietly operates against the main current of high policy. [pg 6]
    Second, active U.S. diplomatic involvement at some critical political junctures has helped
    keep democracy intact or increase the possibility of its return. U.S. opposition to threatened
    coups in Guatemala, Ecuador, Paraguay, and elsewhere in Latin America was not the only factor
    causing their defeat but it was significant. U.S. pressure on Fujimori in Peru’s presidential
    elections this year did not stop him from manipulating the process but raised the price he is
    paying at home and abroad for doing so. [pg 9]
    It is likely that the next administration will hew to the well-established policy line in Latin
    America and Eastern Europe of linking democracy to economic and security goals. Adverse
    developments in the Andean region—such as continued defiance of democratic norms by
    President Fujimori in Peru and democratic slippage in Venezuela—may test that policy line early
    on. [pg 11]

    “Democratic slippage in Venezuela”- what could THAT be about? As this was published in September 2000, it has to be about El Finado, a.k.a. Hugo Chávez. Which illustrates very well the damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t situation of the US. Ignacio would inform us that the US was remiss in not denouncing Fujumori enough- but nary a word about Clinton/US silence on El Finado’s record on “democratic slippage.” Rest assured that if the Clinton Administration had said a word about “democratic slippage” in Venezuela, El Finado’s and his gang would have been denouncing Yanqui interference to the rafters.

    I don’t blame Ignacio for being ignorant- it is also much to his credit that he has read Del Buen Salvaje. However, the CC editors are strongly remiss in letting his article pass through without substantial editing. There should have been some CC adults to inform Ignacio of his grievous lack of knowledge of Latin America. Similarly, some adult editors at CC should have informed Rodrigo Palau that his endorsement of Gustavo Petro, were it to be honest, should have included Gustavo Petro’s endorsement of Venezuela’s July 30 217 Constituyente false fote. Gustavo Petro tweeted that the July 30 vote was a great example of the people choosing. Yeah, right. Only a Chavista fanboy or a damned fool believed that. But Gustavo Petro did.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here