I agree that these books provide a coherent overview of the U.S. international policies in recent times. Combined with the observations of Smedley Butler( quoted above) from earlier history it gives a pretty unflattering picture of American foreign policy. One way this is justified in recent times is to say these things are about "protecting American interests abroad". Such statements have a kind of sacrosanct quality that few are willing to challenge, because they will be labeled as unpatriotic and unrealistic about "protecting American interests abroad". The fact that these polices are actually costly , anti-democratic, destabilizing, and liable to promote violence and that none of these are things the American public has agreed as being in their interest is ignored. The truth is that the policies are good for corporate exploitation and arms sales and benefit only a small segment of very rich, powerful and well-connected Americans is ignored. The hypocritical and racist way we allow Europeans to choose political systems that are more socialist and with strong social safety networks, but violently oppose such movements in Latin America also exposes the inconsistency of our foreign policy.

Americans will only get truth in history and the news when we create public media that refuse any aid from commercial companies unless that aid is completely anonymous and with no announcements of sponsorship. It may also require complete independence from taxpayer money. The last 8 years show the degree to which public media have been corrupted and emasculated by commercial and 2 party politics.

Yes, very relevant indeed as Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine described so fluently. I agree with your comment of our US politicians having the behind the scenes knowledge and it's all hypocritical at the least. Many people, however find the truth to appear as fiction since it's so terribly diabolical; it's "safer" for many to stay in denial.

Not necessarily directly related to the SOA, but relevant;
Read the books Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, and mostly The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. They both document the way we interact with and "help" other countries, especially weaker countries in a vulnerable state. I stopped reading anymore political books after the Shock Doctrine, It was so broad in it's look at the United States policy and trickery in other countries. Most of what it covered I had read elsewhere over the years, but to see it all so well described in one place was sickening. It now bothers me to see some politicians call us a Christian nation because they MUST know what really goes on under the radar. I also can no longer vote either Republican OR Democrat. It makes me realize that the current administration is doing it to us now (the bailout, the FISA law, etc.).

let justice said "When we fight evil we often are as prone to obfuscation as those who advance evil. We want the evil to be defined as evil as possible, and our cause to be as righteous as possible so we can be powered to victory. Whereas freedom is in the truth."

Yes, and this is where the press, human rights workers, and a political debate that treats evidence and witnesses from all sides with respect must inform our opinions and decisions.

"The question is not the school's public mission statement, but the historic use of military aid in the region, and the school's role within that history." Jonabark

"please cover a few bases such as what the school's overall mission is; what US policy in Latin America is .....; what the role of the school is in all of this" letjusticerolldown

I think we are raising the same question. I am simply noting that L Frudge did not address it.

Thank you for outlining the basics of a case. Part of the reason I think it so important to present a whole case is that whether the government keeps SOA or closes it--they will still not articulate our overall long-term policy objectives and strategies--and the place of military involvement in any of that. Simple transparency would likely have reformed or closed SOA long ago. To a degree the fight against SOA casts light on pieces of the problem--but if the argument is just cast as a bunch of terrorists and victims then there is really no more objective light cast on the situation than when we started.

When we fight evil we often are as prone to obfuscation as those who advance evil. We want the evil to be defined as evil as possible, and our cause to be as righteous as possible so we can be powered to victory. Whereas freedom is in the truth.

I disagree that that is the implication of the piece. Evil and violence come from an imbalance of power and from the lusts nd addictions common to the human condition. I think SOA/WHINSEC is a decades long expression of he very worst of American use of the military and American foreign policy. To close it tis both to reprimand the school for promoting the worst possible use of military power to solve what are clearly internal political problems, and to mark a turning point toward a more nuanced and respectful relationship with the rest of the Americas.

There is however, an implication here. The implication is that we have used the words communism and socialism as an excuse for violence. The US has promoted and tolerated a hypocritical and alarmist labeling of all dissent in the cause of human rights and economic justice, and used those labels to group peaceful workers for justice with those who take up arms. Instead of standing for the same political rights we enjoy here, we have given aid to governments like Colombia( the highest number of killings of labor organizers in the world) . We have aided the overthrow of elected governments( Chile, Guatemala) . And we have even armed terrorists( the Contras who killed many civilians and rarely engaged the Nicaraguan Military, and the paramilitary death squads of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Colombia). The economic origins of this policy are blatant and well documented. ( they are best summarized in these words of the renowned and highly decorated Marine Corps general Smedley Butler who wrote in his book War is aRacket : "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.")

The question is not the school's public mission statement, but the historic use of military aid in the region, and the school's role within that history. One glaring hypocrisy here is that the US does not allow the US Military to conduct operations within the US, and that we have a history of clear separation between the military and political system( no coups in our history) with civilian control of the military . We should be consistent in refusing military aid to any government that is under military control and/or that uses the military to suppress dissent , especially when they are killing nuns, priests and union organizers.

The bigger goal for many is to have a military only for the clear defense of our borders, and to cooperate within the UN mandate and other countries to prevent piracy, nuclear catastrophes, and cross-border aggression or genocide. The bigger goal is to have a foreign policy that promotes political rights for all and a stable world where we are a nation among nations and not an imperial presence which uses its clout to maintain the unjust control and consumption of world resources. I deeply believe we will find ourselves much richer and happier as a people when we realize our national interest is not to take but to share.

I am very sympathetic to listening to the apologetic for closing the school. But please cover a few bases such as what the school's overall mission is; what US policy in Latin America is attempting to accomplish; what Latin American governments and military's are trying to accomplish; what the role of the school is in all of this: what you consider to be the legitimate policies of the US; what (if any) legitimate involvement of the US military in training/equipping Latin American militaries should be; how you see reform occuring; etc.

Closing a school is a single tactic. The case for doing so makes sense, or doesn't make sense, based on what the goal is and the broader strategy for reaching the goal.

If you simply project most the evil and violence committed by powers in Latin America onto this school--then I guess most evil and violence will stop when the school closes. I doubt that is what you are arguing--but that is the implication of the piece.

Please clarify.

Yay the sooner we close this school the better.

o

Thank you, I missed this report. It is time we quit this training of foreign leaders who use that training to enslave their people in poverty. Their oppression of the leaders who would speak against injustice has kept Latin America a fertile ground for communistic and socialistic alternatives. It is time that the United States started trusting the democratic process, and giving freedom a chance in other nations.