Comments on: Lest We Forget, Take 2: Neo-Cons, Falklands and Historical Revisionism

By: scott

scott — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:11:52 +0000

Smedley Butler would suggest that my reading of history is spot on. I am talking about late 19th/early 20th Century exercises, Teddy Roosevelt Roughriders, and our activities in Central America and much of Northern South America.

I dare say a good history of that region vis a vis American intervention overt and covert hasn’t been written or at least widely taught.

I don’t deny that the Monroe Doctrine was pick up and wielded willy-nilly. But the Canadian/British separation was long since finished when the Falklands episode erupted.

My only point is that Ronnie could have told Maggie to heel if he had wanted to. He could have pointed to the Monroe doctrine if he wanted to. I imagine that Bush and others counseled that brown people need to know who’s boss occasionally. I can’t remember, did our own noble and virtuous assault on that looming Granada happen before or after. Thank God that threat was averted. Not to mention Bush’s Christmas miracle midnight attack on Panama. Noriega the drug running grinch was sacked and we were able to have a white Christmas.

If we had wished to oppose the British take-over of the Falklands we could have. The neo-cons enjoy their place at the root of our religious tradition. They’ve used our myths to twist our actions to their liking.

They might have been in hoc with the Argentinians but those Jews forgot that blood is thicker than faith. The US and Britain are closer than any special alliance. It’s racism v. racism.

By: Jon Harrison

Jon Harrison — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:14:47 +0000

You need to learn your history a bit better. The Latin American rebels, not the Monroe Doctrine, drove the Spanish from South America. When issued, the Monroe Doctrine was aimed at preventing the Holy Alliance from intervening on Spain’s behalf. It was a great bluff on our part, made possible by the Holy Alliance’s unwillingness/inability to mount an expedition across the Atlantic.

The British, French, Dutch and even the Danes retained colonial territories in the Western Hemisphere right into the 20th century, with no attempt by the US to oust them. Your original point was that Britain’s possession of the Falkalnds somehow violated the Monroe Doctrine. It did (and does) not, anymore than Britain’s possession of Canada did.

By: scott

scott — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:51:57 +0000

John, we used to Monroe Doctrine to justify the Spanish American War and many of our other activities that never got called wars, specifically the Panamanian separation from Columbia and then splintering off Venezuela as well.

The Monroe Doctrine was the very appeal that drove Europe out of South America. And was used extensively years after James Monroe had left this earth.

By: Fulano Zutano

Fulano Zutano — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:27:28 +0000

There is another big hole in the Weekly Standard’s argument which is its dreadful (and probably willful) ignorance of the current political situation in Argentina. The language used is totally inappropriate. There is nothing “hostile” about the current Argentine government unless “hostile” is meant to imply that Buenos Aires does not take orders from Washington. The word “regime” conjures up images of a dictatorship. In fact Kirchner’s Partido Justicialista (the Peronists) lost its majority in congress very peacefully in last summer’s elections. Some “regime”! Words like “erratic” and “unstable” are used to describe Kirchner, implying somehow that a dangerous woman is at the helm and therefore anything could happen including war. This ignores the present government’s repeated commitment to a diplomatic solution to the problem of the Malvinas. Moreover, both Nestor and Cristina Kirchner have an anti-military pedigree dating back their Montenero days. Indeed, Argentina has to all intents and purposes been effectively disarmed. I live in Buenos Aires and I can tell you that people are far more preoccupied with the cost of living and crime. The Malvinas figures extremely low on Argentina’s list of priorities. The idea that Britain and Argentina may soon be at war again is 1st class neo-con nonsense.

By: Jon Harrison

Jon Harrison — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:01:07 +0000

The Falklands became British when we were still a British colony, my friend. No conflict with the Monroe Doctrine, under which we forbade European nations to make NEW inroads in the Western Hemisphere. Do consult President Monroe’s message of Dec. 2, 1823.

By: scott

scott — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:16:49 +0000

Jon, you position conflicts with the Monroe Doctrine. How did we allow the British to claim that Island ever. We could have sent the British packing if we had simply proclaimed such.

Of course we don’t have a coherent strategy in South America. We supposedly oppose colonialism though we’ve never really let them enjoy self rule.

What is happening in South America is very intriguing. The liberal movement there is exciting and a direct rejection of American hegemony. While we’re frittering away our power, influence and money in the Islamic world we are losing the controls on South America.

Soon, the American empire will fall to those anti-colonial forces that justified our establishment. We can only get America back by withdrawing our tentacles that encircle the world.

By: MRW

MRW — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:50:55 +0000

Is “2002″ correct in this passage: “As the New York Times reported after the war in June, 2002?”

By: E. A. Costa

E. A. Costa — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:56:24 +0000

Another excellent disentangling by Mr. Lobe.

On the other hand, after Strauss, Neo-Cons are not “correctable” in any ordinary sense of the word, for lying through their teeth is not only second nature but a central part of their program.

Most of the rest of the Right Wing does the same thing but it takes them more effort and they likely believe their own lies, many of them so contorted in their nonsense that psychological illness is the only explanation.

The classic case is Reagan himself, who stood up before the world in all sincerity and said, “The U.S. will never be the first to use nuclear weapons.”

By: epppie

epppie — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:09:09 +0000

Of course, the real kick is that the Obama administration certainly does support Britain in the dispute with Argentina, and we can surmise that this is one of the primary reasons for the establishment of SouthCom. Even assuming that Britain’s claim to the Falklands is credible, their use of this claim to also claim massive amounts of resources in the southern oceans is not remotely credible and can only sustained via equally massive force.

It has recently been revealed that Thatcher was apparently prepared to nuke Argentina over the Falklands. We now understand why.

By: Jon Harrison

Jon Harrison — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:28:08 +0000

While you are quite right in reminding us that the neocons of the day supported the Argentine junta (a power of the “future” in their view — shades of Anne Morrow Lindbergh!), the Haig statement was superseded shortly thereafter by the US throwing its support (including crucial intelligence asssets) behind the British effort to recapture the Falklands. Indeed, Haig’s tilt toward Argentina was one of the reasons he was ousted as Secy. of State shortly thereafter. The Right, except for some (or was it most?) of the neocons, was behind Thatcher and Britain.

Be that as it may, you are also right to criticize the neocons of today for painting Obama as an appeaser on this issue. The only correct policy for the U.S. is to declare the question of sovereignty moot, while maintaining that only peaceful means can be used to settle the issue (which of course means Britain will keep the Falklands for the indefinite future).