The Legacy

Howard's Alan McPherson says we should locate the precedents for Iraq in past American imperial ventures in Latin America:

Unfortunately, that ancient lesson has evidently been completely forgotten — even though it is most salient. What is Iraq now was Latin America then, a time and place where the force of the United States as an invading power was considered at least as powerful as it is today.

Whether in Haiti or elsewhere, Americans back then believed that they were top dog — and, after invading, could fix up a place like that rather quickly. Little did they know then… Little do we know now…

Greg Grandin's Empire's Workshop made a related argument.

Comments

we should locate the precedents for Iraq in past American imperial ventures in Latin America:

The past? Heck, go do a Google News Search on "chiquita" and "colombia" and keep in mind that Chiquita is the modern name of the United Fruit Company.

{see also Guatemala in 1954, the history of the "banana republic", and E Howard Hunt}

Posted by Tom - Daai Tou Laam | September 24, 2007 8:58 AM

To the best of my knowledge, Iraq has been far most costly in terms of the number of casualties of US troops (both killed and injured), which doesn't excuse US imperialism in Latin America, but it does underscore an important difference.

Posted by Rich | September 24, 2007 9:06 AM

Hey everyone check out the lively discussion under Ganji's letter. Don't tell me you give more of a crap about Joe Biden than you do about the future of Iran!

Posted by Wurd | September 24, 2007 9:08 AM

Quite true, but the precedent applies domestically as well as to our foreign adventures.

The precedent for Bush's aggrandizement of executive power and destruction of Constitutional government can be located in the powers that the dictators we were defending had.

Bringing the war back home, and all.

Posted by lambert strether | September 24, 2007 9:08 AM

While it's not Latin America, I'm fairly attached to the Philippine Insurrection as a particularly analogous historical event. I use it in class quite a bit.

There are quite a few parallels: The U.S. invaded for dubious "humanitarian" reasons, got bogged down in a guerilla conflict that went very badly, tortured Filipino insurgents trying to get information about the insurgency, and then, as we'll eventually be forced to do in Iraq, declared victory and got out.

Posted by Tom Spencer | September 24, 2007 9:10 AM

I vote for the US Occupation of the Phillipines.

Posted by Hesiod | September 24, 2007 9:19 AM

See also Overthow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer. Great book.

Posted by Coral | September 24, 2007 9:24 AM

The Phillipines, as well, under Roosevelt I

Posted by NaR | September 24, 2007 9:26 AM

Yeah, the Phillipines is the best analogy by far. Somebody get the wonderful quote from McKinley about how he decided to take them over. The local folk had helped us in our war with Spain, and there was considerable sentiment for giving them their independence in the pre-Imperial American manner. But no. McKinley had a talk with God one night ... and the rest is history. He sounded just as disingenuous, if not deluded, as GWB.

Posted by David in NY | September 24, 2007 9:49 AM

The US embassy in Bogota was the largest one until the construction of the embassy in Iraq.

Regarding McKinley, don't forget that Rove has described him as his favorite president.

Posted by Charles | September 24, 2007 9:53 AM

OK, here's McKinley:

I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way—I don’t know how it was, but it came: (1) That we could not give them back to Spain—that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany—our commercial rivals in the Orient—that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves—they were unfit for self-government—and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed, and went to sleep, and slept soundly, and the next morning I sent for the chief engineer of the War Department (our map-maker), and I told him to put the Philippines on the map of the United States (pointing to a large map on the wall of his office), and there they are, and there they will stay while I am President!

Credit for quote goes to Dan Kevrick in a comment to Matt Y's post of July 15, 2007. McKinley seems to be unaware either that the Philipines had been "Christianized" long before by the Spanish or that Catholics are Christians.

Posted by David in NY | September 24, 2007 9:59 AM

The Good Rev. and part-time Atriot, RMJ, has been making this point (comparing even the Monroe Doctrine with our actions in Iraq) on the left side of the nets for some time now ...

Posted by DAS | September 24, 2007 10:02 AM

Though the US never faced Iraqi-sized insurgencies in Central and South America (except proportionally, & through proxy governments), there are some excellent points to learn from the history there. Certainly a student of the history there would be attuned to a huge discrepancy between what the US govt says domestically about their involvement, and what people there, and the facts on the ground, say about it. Try to reconcile "liberation of Iraqis" with the ~5M diplaced or dead Iraqis...

One thing different is how much lip service the Bush admin has paid to claiming NOT to support strongman dictators. Bush has rejected the so-called pragmatism of the Kissinger era. I think it's ironic that the laboratory case was/is Iraq, which -- because of the sectarian differences and the way a Shia majority there strengthens Iran -- is one of the stronger cases the pragmatists ever had for living with a contained Saddam Hussein. Over FOUR MILLION displaced Iraqis make the contained Saddam Hussein scenario look pretty attractive by comparison...

Posted by tubino | September 24, 2007 10:13 AM

Ah, yes, Haiti, that was the country whose president Giullaime Sam was hacked to death outside the presidential palace before the marines came ashore. The US stayed for 19 years their was a brief insurgency; (FDR wrote the constitution while he was Asst. Sec. of the Navy)we pulled out on his watch as President, leaving
a local constabulary. One of the most persistent
of anti-occupation activists was a doctor and ethnographer named Duvalier; who felt the mulatto
clans had gotten too good a deal. and the rest is
history.

About Guatemala, the story pre 1953 is less clear cut; than Grandin and the author of Overthrow paints about. How Arevalo, Arbenz's predecessor,
rose to power after Colonel Arana was 'terminated.
Ubico, was a bad guy, but was he significantly worse than Estrada Carrera in the late 19th Century.

Posted by narciso | September 24, 2007 10:22 AM

US intervention in Latin America goes back over a century.

Go back and add up all the US military casualties from all those interventions and it will easily surpass the current US death toll in Iraq.

The Marines were using biplanes to medevac casualties in Nicaragua in the 20s.

Maybe Smedley Butler has some insights into this. He was involved in many of those interventions and he famously said "War is a Racket" and we were fighting for the interests of the United Fruit Company.

And that's just direct intervention. The US has also intervened indirectly in Latin America countless times, using the CIA and military to train brutal dictators how to torture their people.

Posted by Tom3 | September 24, 2007 10:45 AM

At some point Americans are going to have to realize that the purpose and function of the American military is to incapacitate other organized military organizations. Or to stand guard on defense against other organized military organizations.

That's it.

The exalted position of the military in the American public consciousness has reached a point where people believe that the military can do anything. Things like "running a country" are not military missions. Certainly "installing a democracy" is not now, nor has it ever been, a military mission.

Of course, as the disparity between American military power and the military power of other nations continues to grow, the temptation for adventurism continues to be irresistible for far too many people.

Posted by Whispers | September 24, 2007 10:45 AM

I always liked Senator J.C. Spooner's comments about the Spanish-American War. He said it might have been avoided but "the current was too strong, the demagogues too numerous, the fall elections too near."

That seems to about cover it. I've been talking about this since 2003 actually. Here's a link to my first extended post about it. I also made passing references to this as early as April of 2003 while the invasion was still going on. I've also since talked about it at both incarnations of the corrente group blog as well. (I'd provide you with other links but our search function seems to be down at the moment.)

Posted by Tom Spencer | September 24, 2007 10:55 AM

Ahh, the Filipino insurgency in 1900.

Mark Twain protested that bloody mess. One of his famous quotes is a speech of his where he describes how US troops went into a Filipino town and massacred every last man, woman and child there.

Of course dumb redneck Repukes don't know and don't care about the bloody history of the US. It isn't taught in school and they don't want to hear anythign that contradicts their jingoism.

Stupid Repukes think the US is perfect in every way and can do no wrong. LOL!!

Posted by Tom3 | September 24, 2007 11:00 AM

If you're interested, here's a link to my last extended discussion of historical analogies to the Iraq War.

It's nearly two years old but I still think it's apt.

Posted by Tom Spencer | September 24, 2007 11:11 AM

The Phillipines do provide a potentially useful analogy.

There was also significant political conflict, domestically. The Republicans under Roosevelt were fierce in defending their colony. Taft -- future President and Chief Justice -- was made governor, which is a measure of how prominent American involvement was. Grover Cleveland, the last Democratic President, became head of the Anti-Imperialist League, opposed to the U.S. domination of the islands.

When the Democrats returned to power under Woodrow Wilson, the "education" agenda of the Republicans was made real. The Phillipines were made self-governing, except for the position of Superintendent of Public Instruction, who remained a Presidential appointee, and the path to independence was set.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | September 24, 2007 11:11 AM

I don't have to go to Latin America for evidence of US military atrocities against native insurgents.

Here in Colorado, the Sand Creek Massacre in 1864 was particularly brutal.

State militia troops bayoneted babies while they murdered an entire peaceful encampment of Arapaho and Cheyenne tribes...who had been earlier instructed by the US government to camp there.

Then in 1914, Colorado National Guard troops murdered an encampment of striking miners, indiscriminately machine-gunning women and children.

The US is a great country, ain't it? LOL!!

Posted by Tom3 | September 24, 2007 11:24 AM

As far as analogies go, there's also (though to a lesser extent) the Mexican-American War.

Posted by Skemono | September 24, 2007 1:00 PM

I also recommend Overthrow.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/17-9780805082401-0

Americans may forget the wars waged by our government. But the people on the other side of the bayonet don't. Here's to purging the amnesia.

Posted by mark | September 24, 2007 1:25 PM

I seem to remember CIA involvement in 50's Iran. Something about assasinating the president and installing a shah. That one didn't come back and bite us, did it?

Posted by wharfrat | September 24, 2007 7:26 PM

I'm late to the game there, but I was struck in Garcia Marquez's memoires (Live to tell about it) that Colombia had a nice left of center government until Gen George Marshall came to town. He must have encouraged and funded the extreme right, because shortly thereafter, thousands of decent folks with progressive ideas were slaughtered. So bad even Catholic priests went to the maquis.

Posted by Nur al-Cubicle | September 27, 2007 5:27 PM