Jackson Diehl stepped up to the plate today and did what any good Washington Post Deputy Editorial Editor does. He wrote a Kissingeresque analysis of America’s ills in Latin America.
Diehl portrays Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez:
[Chavez] aspires to make Latin America anti-American and anti-democratic.
And:
Argentina’s Nestor Kirchner, …in the past few weeks has moved from the hemisphere’s camp of moderate democratic leftists toward Chavez’s “revolutionary” embrace.
And:
the Chavez-backed victory in Bolivia of Evo Morales, a former llama herder and coca farmer who describes himself as Washington’s “nightmare.” Lacking any coherent policies of his own, Morales will probably take instruction from Chavez, Kirchner and Fidel Castro — who at age 79 must believe he is finally seeing the emergence of the totalitarian bloc he and Che Guevara tried and failed to create in the 1960s.
and:
Mexico could be led by Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a socialist who has never visited the United States.
Diehl also laments the likely democratically elected return of the Sandanistas. Perhaps we can divert some of the money intended for Iraq to aid a latter-day Contra movement.
At no point does Diehl offer an analysis of why socialism is on the March in Latin America. Instead, he dishonestly characterizes the shift as a return to totalitarianism and as fundamentally anti-democratic. But, he offers zero evidence for these charges.
Instead, he opines:
Chavez and his populist followers will fail to create sustainable prosperity, as they have throughout Latin history. The same democracies that are giving leftists a chance to rule, if preserved, will oust them when they fail. In the short term, however, much of Latin America is going to be an unfriendly place for liberal ideas and free markets — and with them the United States.
The Washington Post, which is broadly considered to be a left-leaning paper, and which would likely applaud left-wing electoral gains in Europe, has no patience for a leftward shift in Latin America.
The reason is clear. The broader Chavez movement shows few signs of becoming authoritarian, but many signs of impeding American business interests and influence. To people like Allen Dulles, Henry Kissinger, Pat Robertson, and perhaps, Jackson Diehl, this is reason enough to assassinate leaders like Hugo Chavez and to arm right-wing guerillas to reverse the results of democratic elections.
I’d like to know what the ramifications of this are:
Thanks to Mar del Plata, Bush is at least aware of the problem. On his return he ordered a high-level review of U.S. policy in the region. A subsequent meeting of senior officials from the departments of State, Defense, Treasury and other agencies generated a handful of new ideas
New ideas? Or old ideas? Like Operation Condor?
