Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Hugo Go Home
Duncan Currie takes a few whacks at Hugo Chavez's claims of international influence.
Chávez may be a throwback to the old South American caudillos, who blended populism, authoritarianism, and military rule. But even his two supposed protégés, Evo Morales of Bolivia and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, are hardly carbon copies. In Nicaragua, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega regained power with less than 40 percent of the vote, thanks to election rules that make it possible for a candidate to win the presidency with just 35 percent. But a majority of Nicaraguans voted for one of the two center-right candidates. Thus far, Ortega has accepted the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
Talk of a populist surge in the region contains some truth. But Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua are three of Latin America's weakest, poorest countries, never fully integrated into the global economy. As Christopher Sabatini, senior policy director at the Americas Society and editor in chief of Americas Quarterly, points out, the elections of Morales and Correa were based less on ideology than on practical grievances. And Ortega's victory was certainly "not a triumph of leftism," but rather "a triumph of electoral manipulation."
My first reason web column was about Chavez and how his chest-pounding elevated a left-wing candidate into the second round of Peru's presidential election... and how it backfired and kept that candidate from defeating basically discredited ex-president Alan Garcia in a run-off. (Garcia was the failed predecessor of Alberto Fujimori. Imagine if in 1988 the GOP nominated Richard Nixon and you get an idea of how weird this comeback was.) More recently Michael C. Moynihan criticized Chavez's Western enablers... but I remain more interested in the impression that Chavez is a gathering threat to American national security. He's got an inflated sense of his own popularity and reach.
|9.18.07 @ 5:28PM|#
I wish his name was Juego. That would be more amusing to
me.
Incidentally, I don't fear him, either. Just like I don't fear the
Middle East. At least, "I" don't when collectively lumped in with
the rest of the United States. My personal status as a military and
economic power is somewhat limited.
|9.18.07 @ 5:34PM|#
Hey, joe, I just bought Shirer's Collapse of the Third Republic at a library discard sale. One dollar! I started reading it as a borrowed item from the same library a while back, but I never finished it. Pretty good stuff. I've always thought the French collapse in WWII was fascinating when contrasted with their amazing tolerance for years of death and destruction in WWI. It had a lot to do with internal politics and ennui. They had the military power to at least slow down the Germans, after all. They just failed to use it.
|9.18.07 @ 5:46PM|#
A buck?!? Lucky bastard!
The French did not have "amazing tolerance of death and destruction
in WW1." The army staged a revolt.
And the French did fight, very hard. They just lost, because the
Germans had superior tactics. They were beaten fair and square.
|9.18.07 @ 5:55PM|#
joe,
Read Shirer's book. I thought he presented a compelling case that
France gave up the ghost way too early. They certainly lacked the
strong leadership that they had during the earlier war.
As for revolts, well, there were quite a few mutinies of one kind
or the other during the war. That was one point the Nazis liked to
conveniently forget with all of the "stabbed in the back"
rhetoric--the military wasn't much interested in continuing the
fight, either.
|9.18.07 @ 6:01PM|#
J sub D,
I don't know WTF you are whining about, and really don't care. My
point is clear and correct, and I don't really care if you want to
play dumb or not.
Pro Lib,
I've read and reread it. Thanks.
As a political journalist, Shirer takes a very political view of
things. Having read other sources, including those that are
stronger on the military side of things, I don't find his argument
that compelling. The French were whupped. They could have kept
fighting, but the outcome was a foregone conclusion, and the extra
death and destruction in their country would have accomplished
nothing.
|9.18.07 @ 6:08PM|#
I agree that France would've lost, anyway, but they could've
made a war out of it and maybe held out long enough to have reached
a negotiated peace without Paris falling. It was the rapid collapse
that kept Britain's help from being worth anything.
Of course, failing to act while Germany was tied up with Poland was
the real mistake.
|9.18.07 @ 6:09PM|#
J sub D,
I don't know WTF you are whining about, and really don't care. My
point is clear and correct, and I don't really care if you want to
play dumb or not.
joe, The Germans invaded neutral countries and introduced chemical
warfare. Fairly and Squarely.
|9.18.07 @ 6:11PM|#
J sub D,
No chemical warfare in WWII. As for neutral countries, Germany
always invades those on the way to Paris. It can't help itself.
|9.18.07 @ 6:12PM|#
My bad. I thought we were talking WW I. WWII the Germans behaved completely honorably. Nope, no war crimes here folks, move along.
|9.18.07 @ 6:16PM|#
The rapid collapse was in response to a rapid military debacle.
The blitzkreig rolled the Germans through France at an unheard of
rate.
If you want an example of a rapid collapse, check out the section
on Belgium and King Leopold. He have up when the allies still had a
strong defensive posture.
J sub D,
You seriously read my statement, And the French did fight, very
hard. They just lost, because the Germans had superior tactics.
They were beaten fair and square., in response to a statement
about the French surrenduring before they were defeated militarily,
as a comment on the morality and decency of the Nazi military
machine?
Seriously?
Wow.
|9.18.07 @ 6:19PM|#
From what I remember, Ollanta Humala lost mostly because he practically insulted half his country. He said the people from the coast were lazy and stupid, or something like that. Imagine what would happen if a candidate said that people from the west coast had turds for brains, and that's what happened to Ollanta. While Chavez is not as popular as he would like to believe, I don't think his involvement with Ollanta hurt Ollanta as much as you think. Ollanta screwed up his own campaign by himself.
|9.18.07 @ 6:22PM|#
joe, let me try to get this across, since I was obviously being obtuse. There is no fair/unfair in war. That's pretty much what my original post was about. War crimes convictions are for the losers. War winners never cheat. That's all.
|9.18.07 @ 6:41PM|#
Not all of his carbon copies are even winning elections. His
buddy Obrador in Mexico was defeated by Calderon (albiet barely).
Calderon is basically like a Mexican version of a moderate
Republican. Humala in Peru couldn't even win against a crook like
Gracia. So much for the "Bolivarian Revolution".
And I still don't get why Chavez uses the name of a 19th-century
classical liberal for his movement.
fyodor|9.18.07 @ 6:41PM|#
Oh c'mon you two. "Fair and square" is ironic wording to use for war, no doubt, I noted that too. But obviously joe doesn't think the Nazis were being "fair" to invade France!!!
|9.18.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Oh, I don't know about that. We've already established beyond a reasonable doubt upthread that joe is and was pro-Vichy.
|9.18.07 @ 6:47PM|#
He booed, you know, when Captain Renault said, "Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects."
J sub D|9.18.07 @ 6:51PM|#
Oh c'mon you two. "Fair and square" is ironic wording to use
for war, no doubt, I noted that too. But obviously joe doesn't
think the Nazis were being "fair" to invade France!!!
Okay, okay already. Hatchet is buried, sword is sheathed and the
peace pipe is gettin' fired up! Peace, Love, Bobby Sherman!
|9.18.07 @ 7:00PM|#
What's this about a peace pipe?
These are best tortilla chips in the whole world!
|9.18.07 @ 7:02PM|#
While I do agree with you joe that when Germany invaded that
France did put up a fight and even got beat there, it was the ennui
and self-defeat at the national/political level which truly KO'd
France:
-Charles de Gaulle was a freaking millitary genius and he never got
the time of day
-The Maginot Line was a millitary disaster waiting to happen (the
Germans can't cross the Ardennes, it's imposible'!)
-They should've attacked Germany ASAP once Germany invaded
Poland...Germany would never have been able to withstand a war on
two fronts that early in the war but Hitler could rely on the
supine nature of the French political and military
establishment...
|9.18.07 @ 7:04PM|#
-They should've attacked Germany ASAP once Germany invaded
Poland...Germany would never have been able to withstand a war on
two fronts that early in the war but Hitler could rely on the
supine nature of the French political and military
establishment...
The fall of Poland happened in October 1939. Its wise not to start
an offensive right before winter!
|9.18.07 @ 7:04PM|#
Agh!
Forgetting everything today:
Meant to say that the strategic level, consisting of the top
military brass and the top politicians, was where the ennui and
self-defeat lay...
|9.18.07 @ 7:06PM|#
-They should've attacked Germany ASAP once Germany invaded
Poland...Germany would never have been able to withstand a war on
two fronts that early in the war but Hitler could rely on the
supine nature of the French political and military
establishment...
The fall of Poland happened in October 1939. Its wise not to start
an offensive right before winter!
And?
That was my point, France should've been prepared for a war with
Germany during that time, and should've gotten it's shit together
to fight Germany when it did cross over to Poland...
|9.18.07 @ 7:09PM|#
That was my point, France should've been prepared for a war
with Germany during that time, and should've gotten it's shit
together to fight Germany when it did cross over to
Poland...
Oh my fault, I thought you wanted them to invade Germany right
after the fall of Poland.
I really can't blame France for not putting up much of a fight
though after losing an entire generation to the meat grinder in
World War I. I wouldn't want to go through that again, either.
|9.18.07 @ 7:11PM|#
joe, I dont know where you get "fair and square" either.
I mean the way those Germans snuck around through that forest
instead of direstly attacking the Maginot Line. That just wasn't
sporting at all.
:)
I'm afraid that with all the "cheese eating surrender monkey" talk
it seems to escape some people that the French not only covered the
British withdrawal at Dunkirk but then held out for another three
weeks against one of the most brutal mechanized onslaughts to
date.
The loss seems to be the result of a lot of poor command and
strategic decisions* but the average French soldier aquitted
himself quite adequately.
*One of the worst of these was the King of Belgium's decision to
surrender in spite of the fact that the Army was prepared to keep
fighting. He quite rightly lost the throne over it.
|9.18.07 @ 7:15PM|#
Frank_A,
I think it's more accurate to attribute the failures you mention to
a hidebound military strategy than to ennui. Failures of intellect,
not character.
They DID prepare for the war - they just thought that huddling
behind the Manginot Line was a good idea. Charles de Gaulle didn't
get the time of day because his superiors couldn't appreciate his
strategic and tactical insights, sort of like the American military
brass couldn't understand Billy Mitchell's in the 20s.
|9.18.07 @ 7:18PM|#
"Huddling behind the Manginot Line" was poorly phrased.
The French attitude at that time wasn't, "Duck! Hide! They're going
to come and get us!"
It was, "We've got the greatest military on the continent! Let them
come - we'll break their forces with our impenetrable line, then
destroy them!"
|9.18.07 @ 7:35PM|#
They DID prepare for the war - they just thought that
huddling behind the Manginot Line was a good idea.
Military leaders (generals/admirals) usually are prepared to fight
the last war.
|9.18.07 @ 7:37PM|#
...while the Manginot Line was based on thinking that had been disproven by the last war.
|9.18.07 @ 7:41PM|#
Since this thread is now about French-loving, the German high command did not expect the French Military to fold the way it did. In fact they believed that the French Army was the "best" in Europe & were apprehensive about engaging them with the materiel at hand after Poland ie they thought Hitler was making a stupid call but had to obey the Fuhrer anyway.
|9.18.07 @ 7:42PM|#
Well, yes, but the German High Command didn't expect the blitzkreig to work so well, and the French to be so thoroughly beaten in the field.
|9.18.07 @ 7:43PM|#
The French actually had more armor and could have used this to their advantage. But they spread their armor thinly throughout the army, instead of using it as a spearhead like the Germans did.
|9.18.07 @ 7:47PM|#
To be fair, our military doctrine on armored warfar was pretty
much the same as the French's in 1940.
We just didn't suffer as much for it, because we didn't have a
border with Germany.
|9.18.07 @ 7:54PM|#
joe-
We had brilliant strategists in the 20s and 30s, but our military
funding was so low then the army actually had to practice with
cardboard tanks.
I'd actually love it if our military spending was still that low.
That was back when Republicans were anti-war, though. *sighs*
|9.18.07 @ 8:41PM|#
The French had brilliant strategists, too, Cesar. Like De
Gaulle.
Ours were just as frustrated and junior than theirs in 1940.
|9.18.07 @ 10:53PM|#
I have to admit (shamefully) that I was unaware of Belgium's role in the fall of western Europe, other than as a stop on the road to Paris. Henceforth I will spit in my Belgian Waffles before I eat them.
|9.19.07 @ 7:22AM|#
Since this has become the Weekday Open Thread, let me tell
everyone who hasn't already heard that Nuon Chea, the former Khmer
Rouge number two was just captured.
Here's to hoping he dies in great, great pain. It's times like
these I wished I believed in God so I could think of him burning in
hell for the rest of eternity.
|9.19.07 @ 7:40AM|#
dead_elvis
It's important to note that it was the Belgian king that
surrendered. The army was prepared to continue fighting.
A big problem too, though, was that the Belgians did not allow the
French and British into the country to take up advance defensive
positions. They were afraid that they might provoke the
Germans.
This at a time when the Germans were massing a huge military force
along their border.
David Ross|9.20.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Chavez does indeed have an over-inflated view of his own power
and influence. But so have all other failed despots in history - as
proven by that word "failed".
Even a predetermined loser can cause an awful lot of damage on his
way out. This damage is usually the loser's whole point.
Gary|9.21.07 @ 8:06PM|#
I read about company called SAIC which devours tax dollars at
the pig-trough called the Pentagon (plus FBI, CIA, and NSA) while
providing the benefit of failed computer projects. They continue to
gain new contracts, despite repeated failures and overruns, mostly
via influence of a huge number of retired military officials in
it's employ, whose #1 job is getting more contracts.
Surprisingly, the in-depth article on SAIC is on Vanity Fair of all
places, plus copied on my website with comments.
This view of SAIC is confirmed by someone at BP I met, who has to
deal with their incompetence and money-grubbing pressure
tactics.
Why mention SAIC?
Well, consider that Venezuela's number one commodity is OIL.
Then consider that SAIC controls (though a subsidiary) Venezuela's
oil refineries. Remember the strike by managers -- er, lockout --
of 2002? Venezuela not only punished some of the managers, but
accused SAIC of intentional industrial sabotage, for political
purposes. Namely, ousting Chavez for instituting mild tax
increases.
Not exactly a pro-business free market philosophy, this SAIC.
This occurred a short time before the foiled military coup, led by
the Generals and the same corporate crowd, which was caught on
video by an Irish (liberal) film crew. I have to grant Chavez the
benefit of the doubt, sulfur or no.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245