Reagan’s Third-World Reign of Terror

[unhappycamper]

Reagan’s Third-World Reign of Terror
by Dennis Hans
Published on Tuesday, February 8, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

As the nation pays tribute to Ronald "Dutch" Reagan on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his birth, media coverage is every bit as laudatory as when he turned 90. I wrote in 2001 about PBS's fawning tributes on the Charlie Rose show and the Jim Lehrer NewsHour. Then, as now, one of the most glaring omissions was the human cost of his foreign policies. In the interest of filling out the Reagan portrait, let us consider a few regions unfortunate enough to capture his attention, starting with Central America.

In January 1981, the newly inaugurated Reagan inherited Jimmy Carter's policy of supporting a Salvadoran government controlled by a military that, along with the security forces and affiliated death squads, killed about 10,000 civilians in 1980. In the first 27 months of the Reagan administration, perhaps another 20,000 civilians were killed. El Salvador's labor movement was decimated, the opposition press exterminated, opposition politicians murdered or driven into exile, the church martyred.

In April 1983, seeking to shore up shaky public and congressional support for continued aid to El Salvador, Reagan went on national television before a joint session of Congress and -- with a straight face -- praised the Salvadoran government for "making every effort to guarantee democracy, free labor unions, freedom of religion, and a free press." The Great Communicator/Prevaricator achieved his objective; aid -- and blood -- continued to flow.

In neighboring Nicaragua, the U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship slaughtered perhaps 40,000 civilians from 1977 to 1979 in a desperate bid to hold power. Candidate Reagan was sad to see Somoza go, and once in office his administration turned to officers from Somoza's hated National Guard to spearhead a "liberation" movement. Known as the contras, they never managed to hold a single Nicaraguan town in their eight years as Reagan's proxy army, though they were quite proficient at raping, torturing and killing defenseless civilians. Tens of thousands of Nicaraguans died in a war that never would have been were it not for good ol' Dutch.

A common criticism of Reagan is that this self-proclaimed fighter against the scourge of terrorism traded with a designated "terrorist state" -- the hostage-holding fundamentalist regime in Iran -- to generate funds for the contras after Congress turned off the tap. That's true as far as it goes. But the contras themselves were terrorists, as were those elements of the Honduran army that the CIA and Ollie North employed to help the contras, as was the notorious Salvadoran air force that assisted in the contra resupply effort. All murdered noncombatants to achieve political objectives. If they were "terrorists" -- and if words have meaning, they were -- what does that make their paymaster and cheerleader in the Oval Office?

[MadHound]

1. Reagan was just one of many administrations who have unleashed a reign of terror in the 3rd world

It has been a thoroughly bipartisan effort in that regard, for the past one hundred plus years. Yes, Reagan killed thousands of people in Central and South American, but Clinton did the same in Iraq, Truman in the Middle East, and let's not even get into LBJ or Obama.

It is the ongoing imperative of American empire.

[Enthusiast]

2. But Reagan did it without the blessing of congress

and THAT made it a violation of the constitution, a crime and grounds for impeachment.

Why the effort to paint Democrats with the same brush? Again with the false equivalency. Are you a secret Republican Reagan apologist?

What Clinton did in Iraq did not result in the rape of Iraqi citizens and it had the full support of congress. The same can be said for Truman's actions or LBJ's or Obama's, for that matter.

[MadHound]

4. Oh geez, this isn't false equivalency, it is the truth

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, study your goddamn history. Look up Guatemala, United Fruit, Iran (as in the last Shah thereof), the Philippines, Costa Rica, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, on and on the list can go. Look up how many people sanctions, and the thrice weekly bombing unleashed by Clinton killed in Iraq. Look up what went on in Vietnam since before the end of WWII (and really now, you're going to defend LBJ over the Gulf of Tonkin:rofl:, even McNamara no longer does that), and then let's talk about what we're doing in Yemen, Somalia, and other such places around the globe. Not to mention the fact that both wars that Obama inherited are illegal, and immoral, yet he continues to pursue them.

Stop being so bloody goddamn partisan and so bloody goddamn nearsighted and recognize the fact that both parties have committed atrocities, that presidents of both parties have got the blood of innocents on their hands, and that we're living in an empire that is the result of bipartisan screwing of the rest of the world.

Damn:banghead: Doesn't anybody know their history anymore?

[Enthusiast]

7. Reagan is a particularly good example

of an American imperialistic president. But congress voted not to fund the Contras. For once congress actually said with their votes that right wing dictators are no better than left wing dictators. Reagan going against congressional approval makes this is a huge difference. Besides that, they sold arms to a terrorist state to fund these illegal operations.

Of course I fully acknowledge both parties have pursued a reckless course of secret and not so secret foreign policy. Duh. I'm old enough to know all about the Gulf of Tonkin.

[MadHound]

9. The only difference when it comes to Reagan is that he got caught,

And though he got caught, he and his administration didn't suffer a penalty. Frankly, given Reagan's advancing Alzheimer's, I think Iran-Contra was a Bush creation that got pinned on Reagan and then used North as the sacrificial goat.

So if you now "fully acknowledge both parties have pursued a reckless course of secret and not so secret foreign policy", why are you busting my chops for pointing out that our rise to empire has been a bipartisan effort, and that Dems have done things just as bad as Reagan and the 'Pugs did? You are contradicting yourself.

[Enthusiast]

11. No contradiction.

Again, I do not love all this wonderful rah rah Reagan's 100th birthday celebration. I do not feel any Reagan celebration is warranted.

We have all been giving our opinion about Reagan, the man, the actor and the president. Someone points out Reagan's disastrous foreign policy and you chime in essentially saying, "The Democrats did it too." What am I supposed to think on a forum filled with right wing and Teabagger posers? Don't we hear enough praise of Reagan and criticism of Democrats on the M$M without hearing the same BS on DU?

[MadHound]

13. I don't like what Reagan did either,

In fact I was out in the streets protesting Reagan at the time, where were you?

Nor am I pleased with the Reaganasm that has occurred during his 100th birthday celebration.

But I'm also a historian devoted to the truth, and the truth of the matter is that both parties have engaged in imperial foreign policy excursions, and to say that what Reagan did was any worse than what his predessors and followers did is simply not the truth.

Yes, this is a Democratic board, but to dismiss the truth in favor of partisan potshots is simply wrong, and it makes a mockery of those who have been killed at the hands of both Democrats and Republicans. Such partisanship makes a travesty of history, a travesty of history, and it impedes the pursuit of the truth, a pursuit that has already far too many roadblocks confronting it without the addition of any more.

As a country we need to face up to the crimes we as a country, not just Democrats, not just Republicans, but the crimes that we as a country committed in the name of empire and wealth. The sooner we do that, the sooner that we can, hopefully, insure that such crimes don't happen again.

[Enthusiast]

3. Did Clinton, Truman and Obama sell

arms to a terrorist state in order to fund a secret war that congress voted against? HUGE difference, just HUGE. I can't imagine a Democrat making your argument, I just can't.

[MadHound]

5. No, Truman actually GAVE a shitload of arms to Ho Chi Mihn right after WWII ended,

Arms that were later used against both the French and the US.

Obama meanwhile is continuing to prosecute two illegal, immoral wars.

Any other questions?

[Enthusiast]

8. Ho Chi Mihn

was an ally in the war against Imperial Japan -that is why they received arms. Truman didn't go against the wishes of congress in doing this. I had no questions.

[MadHound]

10. So was France, and at the time, Ho was more interested in fighting France than in helping win WWII

And besides, when we gave him those arms, WWII was over and Ho was opening his campaign to fight the French.

Yet despite the fact that France was one of our oldest allies, despite the fact that we were officially committed to keeping Indochina in French hands (we would even take over their war for them when they failed), we went ahead and shipped all those supplies we had built up for the invasion of Japan and shipped them off to Vietnam.

The Vietnam war was nothing more, and nothing less, than a war to enrich the MIC. Truman started it, and Ford finally ended it.

[Enthusiast]

12. Everyone in French Indochina

was fighting for their lives against the Japanese -everyone. The Japanese were winning everywhere, in China, Korea, Indochina, the Philippines and throughout the Pacific.

After the war the Vietnamese wanted to throw off the yoke of colonialism. Living in a former colony, myself, I can fully appreciate this sentiment. We were on the wrong side in Vietnam, the wrong side of history and the wrong side period.

[DCKit]

6. Resulting in the amnesty for all the illegals fleeing their home countries.

The whole thing is a complicated mess, but those who profit from conflict were laughing all the way to the bank - and still are.