Stones against Tanks: On US Interventionism
Luis Miguel del Bahia
HAVANA TIMES — Just about any extreme measure was justified within the context of the Second World War and the Cold War. At the time, geopolitical interests in Europe, Africa and Asia were still being defined. Both the Soviet Union and the United States did what they had to do to swell their ranks.
In 1991, the The Belavezha Accords officially put an end to this era. Capitalism spread across the world and, with the exception of two or three nations, all became allies.
Until that moment, the world looked to the United States as the leader of the Western world and a champion of democracy and civil liberties. Today, the veil has been lifted and this image of the USA is deteriorating at breakneck speed.
From 91 on, the United States has intervened in countries that pose no danger to the all-powerful Western bloc, with and without the consent of the United Nations (whom they invoke at their convenience), and without there being an Axis of Evil lurking somewhere (as it would have us believe).
When the United States invaded Iraq, former Spanish President Jose Maria Aznar addressed the people to explain to them the need to support NATO, referring to the existence of nuclear weapons in the former land of Mesopotamia. Years later, he would be forced to admit that no such weapons ever existed.
Today, the unworthy Nobel Peace Prize laureate says he has seen no proof that the Syrian army is using chemical weapons. However, he is determined to send the BOTS over. Apparently, as happened in Japan in 45, they want to test a new toy in a real war scenario.
In the 40 years that tyrant Gadhafi was in power, he must have crushed a good number of popular uprisings. However, it was only the last one that convinced the West he was a dictator. Now, Syria has something worse in store: the US Army in front of a screen, killing people as though in a game.
The Egyptian army is opening fire on civilians with live munitions and breaking up rallies at public squares with brute force. But, when Israel seeks to strengthen its position in the region, no one speaks of tyranny or the abuse of power. They leave them be, so they can take care of their problems without any interference.
I also want to see the Middle East westernized, but you can’t do this by dropping bombs on people. When the smoke clears and the drones in the sky fly away, the mosques will open their doors again.
For the record, Cuba intervened in many countries over the past five decades.
In the early years of the Revolution, Cuba sent commandoes on a failed raid into Dominican Republic. Cuba also supported insurgencies in Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada & El Salvador. Cuban special forces participated in these operations along with local rebels they had armed & trained. In Africa, Cuban troops intervened in Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, Angola & Algeria’s war with Morocco. Cuba also sent a tank battalion to fight for Syria during the 1973 Yom Kippur War against Israel.
Why has Cuba steadfastly allied itself with the most brutal regimes of the Middle East, such as Iran, Bashir el-Assad’s Syria and Gaddafi’s Libya?
Typical pro-Castro Cuban response. First, by what measure does the author use to determine that the image of the USA around the world as a champion of democracy and civil liberties is deteriorating at “breakneck speed”. Coming from a castrista, any comments regarding democracy and civil liberties should be taken with a grain of salt. Second, many US interventions such as Bosnia were grounded in humanitarian need on behalf of an unarmed minority being overwhelmed by an armed majority. When the US fails to act, such as in Rwanda, we are equally criticized. Whether it is universally accepted or not, ‘American Exceptionalism’ is real. Most Americans are equally spent on the role of the US as the “world’s policemen” but the reality is when everything from natural disasters, coup d’états, and civil wars around the world take place, the first thing that happens is that the victims ask “What is the US going to do, how are they going to help?” Third, “estoy harto” with Cubans who are filled with opinions but have no “skin in the game”. It begins with Fidel, who is quick to write a long-winded “Reflexion” critical of brave actions taken by others but offers no tangible help to resolve the problem. This habit of “Monday morning quarterbacking” entertains, but solves nothing. Like Fidel, this author weakly criticizes, but has likely sacrificed nothing to “Westernize” the Middle East. On behalf of the thousands of brave US soldiers who have died or been injured towards this cause, I resoundingly urge the author to go take a long walk on a short pier.