Always On the Wrong Side?

If you live in Austria and a revolution fires up in Central America, your government has three choices of what to do:

1. Your government can support one side
2. Your government can support the other side
3. Your government can ignore the revolution and do nothing at all

Of course, the above statement doesn't just apply to Austria; it applies to most of the countries in the world.

Unfortunately, choice number three is seldom available if you are the world's "superpower." The world seems to expect the superpower to lead, to formulate some sort of policy about anything and everything (after secret consultations with it's "allies".) The friendly countries will then probably begin to support that policy, and the enemies of that superpower will almost automatically form an opposite policy, and their friends will then oppose the superpower as well.

Usually in Central America, Africa, or the Middle East - in countries which have a dictator or strongman of some sort in power - a smoldering revolution finally breaks out with the "rebels" (good guys) revolting against the dictator or strongman (the bad guy) moving from the "guerilla/terrorist" stage to open warfare, once the rebels get supplied from the superpower/allies or the Commie camp.

The question arises as to who the U.S. should support. Make no mistake, it must take sides and many people will always think they've chosen the wrong side. Criticism for U.S. foreign policy is a way of life now. If the U.S. does nothing at all (option three) they are, of course, criticized for doing nothing. This illustrates that the U.S. would be playing a losing game if it were to try and satisfy the rest of the world. You choose who you support and, at the same time, you are choosing who you offend.

In recent memory (maybe the last 60 years or so) the U.S. has had a priority of supporting countries, first of all, who were not Communist. Communist dictators were for the opposition to support and finance. Any sign of internal resistance in any Communist country was supported openly or clandestinely, with munitions or other supplies or simply money, by the U.S. - and often its "allies." If a country was NOT Communist, then the U.S. (and often it's allies) would support that government (even if not exactly democratic) against Communist infiltration or outright invasion. Most of you who are over 40 remember this policy.

At the same time, there has long been a secondary policy of the U.S. to support the dictator in power, even though we didn't really like him (dictators never seem to be a "her") as long as he wasn't Communist-leaning and as long as his government was "stable." Support the guy who is in power and in control of the situation, even if you have to hold your nose. It would be hard to make a complete list of people like this we have supported and continue to support. In the past, Saddam comes to mind; the Shah of Iran; Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak; the Saudi and Kuwaiti and Jordanian royal families -- the list goes on and on. It continues with present-day dictators as well.

The point is, you support the government who is in power as long as it is not openly Communistic and turn your head at it's faults (like torturing its own people) and do your best to make sure a little of the financial aid gets to the populace instead of all going into the dictator's Swiss bank account. The alternative is to constantly have a dozen bloody wars going on all at the same time in the world. Luxembourg doesn't have to fret over this, but the U.S. does.

I say these things to lay the groundwork to talk about some of the things the U.S. Government has done or condoned/allowed the doing of in Central America.

That follows in a later post.