Comments on: Professor Smith on Latin America: The Latest Edition of a Compelling Story http://www.coha.org/professor-smith-on-latin-america-the-latest-edition-of-a-compelling-story/ COHA is an NGO specialized in monitoring Latin American and Canadian Relations for more than 30 years... Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:22:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: himishi http://www.coha.org/professor-smith-on-latin-america-the-latest-edition-of-a-compelling-story/comment-page-1/#comment-27520 himishi Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:30:25 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=1864#comment-27520 You write regarding Smith's analysis of the War on Terror: "He warns that continued U.S. neglect of Latin America could result in a proliferation of terrorist activity throughout the Western Hemisphere, but he is unconvincing in his claim that a real threat exists or is likely to develop. This is perhaps the most disabling aspect of his analysis, and one might like to query the author as to why he headed down this seeming dry gulch when Latin America, as a new zone of fast-growing autonomous behavior, provided such rich grounds for informed speculation." What of the U.S.'s unremitting war OF terror on Latin America for so much of the history of US-Latin American relations? Death squads, counterinsurgency wars, support and training for torturers and murderers ... we've just been reading in the news about the Colombian army's "body counts" in which innocent civilians as disguised as guerrillas in order to fill quotas set by army commanders via a scheme of utterly "perverse incentives" as the economists would describe. Not coincidentally, as anyone with familiarity with the history of US military training programs at the School of the Americas, nearly half of the Colombian army units that committed these crimes were US-trained according to an analysis by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Is this a way to critique Smith for his concern that terrorist threats in Latin America may increase if the US continues to "neglect" the region? Goodness, if paying more attention to the region means more US-sponsored or abetted wars of terror, then let's hope for a lot more neglect by the incoming Obama administration, or else a relationship of terror-free, mutual respect on both sides. Also, if I am not mistaken, the only Latin American act of terror in the U.S. was by Pinochet's secret service in Washington, D.C. when he had the ambassador blown to bits in his car in 1976. So let's rethink this use of war on terror, please. You write regarding Smith’s analysis of the War on Terror: “He warns that continued U.S. neglect of Latin America could result in a proliferation of terrorist activity throughout the Western Hemisphere, but he is unconvincing in his claim that a real threat exists or is likely to develop. This is perhaps the most disabling aspect of his analysis, and one might like to query the author as to why he headed down this seeming dry gulch when Latin America, as a new zone of fast-growing autonomous behavior, provided such rich grounds for informed speculation.”

What of the U.S.’s unremitting war OF terror on Latin America for so much of the history of US-Latin American relations? Death squads, counterinsurgency wars, support and training for torturers and murderers … we’ve just been reading in the news about the Colombian army’s “body counts” in which innocent civilians as disguised as guerrillas in order to fill quotas set by army commanders via a scheme of utterly “perverse incentives” as the economists would describe. Not coincidentally, as anyone with familiarity with the history of US military training programs at the School of the Americas, nearly half of the Colombian army units that committed these crimes were US-trained according to an analysis by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Is this a way to critique Smith for his concern that terrorist threats in Latin America may increase if the US continues to “neglect” the region? Goodness, if paying more attention to the region means more US-sponsored or abetted wars of terror, then let’s hope for a lot more neglect by the incoming Obama administration, or else a relationship of terror-free, mutual respect on both sides. Also, if I am not mistaken, the only Latin American act of terror in the U.S. was by Pinochet’s secret service in Washington, D.C. when he had the ambassador blown to bits in his car in 1976. So let’s rethink this use of war on terror, please.

]]>