The Decline Of A Regional Troublemaker

Hugo Chavez is recovering in a Havana hospital.  He was operated upon for an abscess on his pelvic bone.  The operation was a success as is attested to by a photo of the Paratrooper Turned Socialist Revolutionary standing next to his semi-senescent spiritual mentor, Fidel Castro, and the not-quite-drooling Raul.  There has been no word as to whether or not the Soviet trained Cuban surgeons operated on Hugo's larger and more deadly abscess, the one located in his brain housing group.

Sr Chavez is probably not in too much of a hurry to get back home to Caracas, a city so deadly as to make Juarez appear as peaceful and tranquil as, say, Geneva, Switzerland.  Not only are the bullets flying in greater number than antisemitic slurs in a Cairo mosque on Friday but the economy of Venezuela is heading down the tubes at an ever greater approximation of warp speed.  Further, the grand ambitions of the one-time sergeant to be the Mr Grande of South America are resting in ruins, crushed by the always victorious treads of the ultimate panjandrum--reality.

The oil powered, bribe based diplomacy of Sr Chavez has been ended by the declining production of his country's aging and poorly maintained production fields and infrastructure.  With the ending of the financial inducements has come the ending of Chavez's influence outside of a handful of ideological kinsmen: Ortega, Morales, Correa, and Cristina Fernandez.

While relations with Columbia have improved, this is no fault of Sr Chavez.  The Bolivarian dictator, however, does bear responsibility for the deterioration of relations between Brazil and Venezuela.  Even Peru's new president, who was widely seen prior to his election as a natural ally of Chavez, has repented of his enthusiasm for the Bolivarian Socialist Revolution.  The meltdown of the Peruvian stock market in the immediate wake of his election convinced Ollanta Humala to recast himself instantly as a fan of former Brazilian president Lula de Silva's pro-business philosophy.  (Of course the change may prove to be short-lived, rhetorical, and cosmetic.)

Perhaps, most critically, a recent public opinion poll covering eighteen Latin American countries shows Chavez with the second lowest favorable rating.  (In the coveted position of most unfavorably viewed, one finds Fidel.)  The most recent poll gives Chavez the lowest rating to date of the twelve years he has been running and ruining Venezuela.

Ruining seems almost too kind a word.  Venezuela has an official inflation rate of twenty-three percent.  Its government debt is rising at a rate compared to which the record of the Obama administration appears to be one of pronounced fiscal restraint.  As if those numbers were not bad enough, unemployment runs at a minimum of fifteen percent--double that among youth aged fifteen to twenty-five.

Then there is electricity.  Or, more properly, the lack of electricity.  Venezuela is a green energy heaven with very significant hydro capacity.  Due to the usual suspects--deferred maintenance and inept management--the country now has rolling blackouts and periodic unannounced and unscheduled power outages.  The applied ideology of Chavez and his cronies is solely responsible for this lamentable fact.

The same applies to the flight of capital--both financial and human--from Venezuela to neighboring countries, most commonly Panama.  The middle class, the techocrats, the skilled managers, the small to middling men of commerce and business have left Venezuela in ever increasing droves for the past several years.  Short of building a Berlin Wall around the country, Chavez and his fellow Bolivarians have no means of stopping the crippling losses of money and talent.

Chavez faces reelection in 2012.  Having failed in his repeated attempts to change the constitution so as to allow him to become president-for-life, the Little Man On Horseback must seek another term in office courtesy of the much abused Venezuelan citizenry.  Of course, the man may seek to short-circuit the demands of constitution and democratic process alike.  He has a paramilitary force not unlike the Iranian Bands of Thugs.  He has used this capacity previously to silence dissent and prevent opposition to implementation of his policies, opposition which has come from his own "base" and not the "counterrevolutionary elements."  There is no doubt but his running buddy, Ahmedinejad, has counselled this approach.

The redoubtable dictator has renewed his call for a purely Latin American counterpart to the OAS which would exclude the US and Canada.  This move can be seen as a centerpiece for a nationalistically focused reelection campaign.  Chavez will portray himself  as the embattled foe of the American run imperialistic neo-colonialism.  He will invoke the specters of globalization and the IMF, multinational corporations and the World Bank, Yanqui imperialism and economic exploitation.  All the usual villains will be enlisted to aid Chavez.

The US should pay a bit more attention to South America as Ms Clinton has suggested.  However, there should be rational limits to our attempts to cozen our way back to influence in the region.  We should not, for example, sacrifice our relations with the UK to flatter Ms Fernandez's grand ambition to gain the Falkland Islands.  This still leaves a wide scope for new demarches including a retraction from the Era of Globalization and Privatization lingering on from the time of Bill Clinton.

Retracting from the excesses of globalization along with a new, due regard for the status of the original inhabitants of South America would go a very long way to lowering the appeal of the Bolivarian Revolution and, thus, its emblems such as Hugo Chavez.  We might even make him wish to return to the hospitality of Fidel's own hospital.

Hugo Chavez, Gaddifi's Off-Ramp?

You have to take a bit of pity on Hugo (I, too, am history) Chavez.  His good running buddy Muamar Gaddafi has been in an ever growing world of hurt for some days.  Hugo owed him something as did his fellow Socialists-for-the-21st-century strongmen, Daniel Ortega, Ewo Morales, and Rafael Correa.  At the same time ole Hugo has been getting more and more cozy with Iran's orator-in-chief, Ahmedinejad.  The official president of Iran had taken a strong line supporting the assorted "people power" exhibitions across North Africa and the Mideast.  Of course, Hugo had no desire to offend such a gifted statesman as Ahmedinejad.

What's a conflicted dictator going to do?

After cogitating on the dilemma for several days, Hugo evidently had a Great Idea.  He would become the peacemaker of the day!  He would propose--drum roll, please--mediation!  What a concept!  Why just convene an international (carefully selected) panel of fellow statesmen to chart a course of peace.  Everybody (except imperialist powers headed by the ever grasping US) is in favor of peace, right?

Many commentators apparently assumed that the Chavez notion revolved around keeping Gaddafi in power, perhaps with some cosmetic changes in the makeup of his government.  The couple of bricks shy of a wall Brother Leader may have leaped to the same conclusion as indicated by his speedy acceptance of the proposal.  Number one son, Saafi was less enthused perhaps because due to his greater sophistication in the ways of the world he saw the proposition as being a way of getting dear old dad out of Libya and into the service of Venezuela.

In a completely predicable way the insurgent leadership rejected the offer citing the number of people who had died already in the pursuit of Gaddafi's removal.  This made the lukewarm acceptance of the Chavez demarche by Arab League Director General Amr Moussa irrelevant.  Also stacking the odds against any effort at "mediation" by Chavez or anybody else was the rapid rejection offered by the US, the UK, France, and Italy.  Not daunted by the latter, Chavez pooh-poohed it as typical imperialist blather.  In this he was echoed by Fidel Castro.

In all probability Chavez was angling for a way to provide Gaddafi with an off-ramp from his current parlous position.  Certainly there would be some advantages for the Chavez regime should Gaddifi pitch his tent on one of Venezuela's attractive islands.  Despite the moves taken by the US, UK, and other countries to freeze Gaddafi family money, the cunning old dictator probably has a couple of billion bucks stashed outside the writ of the "imperialist" states.  So he would not be a drain on Chavez' resources.

Gaddifi would bring with him a wealth of knowledge about how to mulct oil wealth and turn it to advantage in such activities as acquiring nuclear weapons, purchasing seats of advantageous status in the UN and its ancillary organs, and supporting promising and ambitious thugs in Africa and elsewhere.  Assuming the good Colonel has not lost all his marbles and memories under the stress of discovering many of "his people" would rather die opposing him than continue living under his odious thumb, Gaddifi would represent a major asset for Chavez whose mouth so far has far exceeded his positive accomplishments.

There would be a downside to offering the aging Libyan autocrat a retirement facility in Venezuela.  The Libyan "leader" might be a fave with Chavez, Morales and Ortega, but he is anathema with most folks living in South America.  All too many of those people have had recent experience living under brutally dictatorial regimes and are soundly on the side of the Libyan insurgents.  Brazil, still and despite the efforts of Chavez, the preeminent regional power was quick to sever diplomatic relations with the Gaddifi government.  Peru was at the head of the list of those countries calling for the imposition of a no-fly zone.  Even Ewo Morales has been quite reticent about giving rhetorical support to the embattled regime.

It is likely that most South American governments recognize the danger which would result from Gaddafi taking up residence in Venezuela.  An inevitable consequence would be an increase in isolation for the "Bolivarian Revolution" of Sr Chavez.

The Venezuelan jefe grande would also call down upon his head the wrath of all those who desire fervently to see Gaddafi in the dock facing assorted criminal charges.  Sr Chavez does not seem to realize just how cordially the Gaddifi regime is detested in so much of the world, "imperialist" and otherwise.  The Colonel's heavy thumb has been felt by the people of Liberia and Sierra Leone where dictators supported by the Libyan troublemaker were able to establish their brutal selves.  This would undercut the Chavez charm offensive, which has been directed against several West African states.  One exception would be Burkino Faso where one Compaore, a graduate of Gaddafi's World Revolutionary Center, came to power by directing the assassination of his friend and president Thomas Sankara in 1987.  (The monstrous Compaore sent troops to support Charles Taylor (another WRC alumnus) in Liberia and Foday Sankoh in Sierra Leone.)

Not to put too fine a point on the dagger of reality, any country which provides sanctuary to Gaddafi will be on the feces list of most countries on Earth.  So Sr Chavez is running a greater risk than he might believe.  It rather seems that if Chavez is convinced of an evildoer's good nature, he believes every correct thinking person in the world must agree with him.

Perhaps by now the Hero of the Venezuelan People has come to regret his calculation and the offer based upon it.  If that is the case his best hope is that the offer will fade away from global consciousness.  It won't, at least not in many chanceries around the world.  This is to the good of all those in and outside Venezuela who hope the "Bolivarian Revolution" will come to an end--quickly.  It sure would be nice if the current incumbent of the Oval were to be among this group.

Bring On The Clowns

The Libyan Affray has a magnetic appeal.  The confrontation between a dictator seemingly unmoored from the consensually agreed upon objective reality and a large, growing group of terminally fed up people has the elements of drama and tragedy which attracts interest and seemingly demands engagement by governments great and small.

One of the more intriguing, not to say potentially amusing, gambits of late has come from the Arab League.  The League, whose director, an Egyptian politician named Moussa, who is seeking the office of president in that country, has stated it is willing to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya.  The Arab League added it would do this in conjunction with the African Union.

The idea originated with Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi expat who was briefly "our man in Baghdad" before the Great Adventure in Regime Change.  He argued the League could do what the US and its allies did in Iraq after the Kuwait War.  The Arab League picked up on the idea as both the UN and NATO showed a profound lack of interest in ordering or enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya.

There is no doubt but some politicians including UK prime minister David Cameron have exhibited a zeal for imposing a no-fly zone which is not widely shared by the respective military forces and their chiefs.  Leading the opposition in public has been Robert Gates.

Dr Gates correctly points out that the imposition of a no-fly zone is both complex and resource intensive.  He is also correct when he warns that establishing a no-fly zone requires waging war, admittedly war of a severely limited sort.  The starting gun announcing the beginning of a no-fly zone is an attack upon the air defense system of the target country.  Missiles would be launched.  Bombs would be dropped.  Men would die down range.  That, bucko, is war no matter what name is put upon it.

He is being disingenuous when he emphasizes the size of Libya and implies that its geographic extent would render the imposition and maintenance of a no-fly zone more complex and resource demanding than the earlier efforts in Bosnia and Iraq.  The critical regions of Libya, the areas where fighting is occurring and where people live and air bases are located are found in a narrow band along the coast.  While there are bases deep in the desert wastes, these can be kept under surveillance by long endurance UAVs or satellites with manned platforms being deployed only as required.

There is one good reason why the US and Western European countries will not establish a no-fly zone.  In the current political climate there is a requirement for UN Security Council authorization.  No such authorization will occur.  Period.  China stated categorically that it would veto any resolution which included the establishment of a no-fly zone.  Russia did the same albeit in less blunt wording.  Both states have held a policy opposing any UN intervention in any matter which can be defined as "internal" for many, many years now and will not make an exception for Libya.

The Arab League and the African Union would not be restricted by the political considerations which make UN sanction so necessary for any Western nation to take action.  For reasons intrinsic to regional politics, either organization can go the no-fly zone route without UN permission.  As the Arab League has resolutely opposed any "foreign" intervention, the stage has been set politically for the League to go ahead with an intervention of its own, presumably including or starting with the imposition of a no-fly zone.

The question is can the members of the League pull it off with or without the aid of states from the African Union.  This is a fascinating matter.  As has been noted in many fora, the conduct of a no-fly zone is complex, resource intensive, and constitutes genuine war.

Neutralizing Libyan air defenses is not a trivial consideration.  The air defenses of Libya are predicated upon Soviet systems delivered and installed over a quarter century ago.  In the US strike back in 1986, the defense was able to shoot down an American aircraft.  Since then there have been upgrades and modifications.  There has also been a degree of system degradation.  Excluding the remaining Soviet and French fighters, the net capacities of the ground based missile and tube defenses would be rated minimal against US or other NATO assets.  The same cannot be said when considering attacks made by forces of either the League or the AU.

The probability of attacker losses is much higher when factoring the capabilities of equipment and personnel of League or Union forces.  This implies that the attacker must have additional assets for flack suppression and combat search and rescue.  It is worth noting that none of the League states have a dedicated combat SAR capability.  Also it is questionable if the League even with AU support has a large enough inventory of requisite aircraft to accept the virtual attrition imposed by the existence of a moderately competent air defense system.

It is worth mentioning that the US and other air forces which imposed the no-fly zones in Iraq and Kosovo had combat experience of recent vintage.  This experience was essential in translating the theory of training into the realities of the field.  In sharp contrast, no Arab League and no African Union member state's air force has combat experience in recent years.  Looking back, the experiences of some League members such as Syria and Egypt in operations against Israel are not such as to engender confidence.

Even giving the most generous assumptions, there is no reason to conclude that the combination of Arab League and African Union assets in fact could establish and maintain a no-fly zone.  Rather, it is probable that the initial losses would provoke escalation terminating in the introduction of ground combat forces.  Of course, such an introduction would require time, probably significant time given the difficulties of establishing a consensus and the complications introduced by the ongoing nature of internal political factionalization afflicting so many of the member states of both organizations.

Time passing would assure an increase in two aspects of the internal war in Libya.  The political will of the regime would be enhanced by the external threat.  The body count would grow as both sides sought a conclusion before outside forces arrived to complicate the situation.

The ground truth is simple.  The Arab League may be long on rhetoric but it is very short on the capability to back words with effective action.  The African Union is, fortunately, more economical with words.  This implies that there is little if any chance of a combined League-Union move on Libya.  This means that the League's threat is empty.

This means the League has to resort to the diplomatic option which originated with Hugo Chavez, who has been a long time associate of Brother Leader.  He has supported the Colonel without reservation since the start of the protests in Libya  He has strongly urged the Arab League to "mediate" the crisis.  And, the League's director has accepted the idea.  So has the incumbent regime.  The anti-government group has rejected the move.

There is nothing to "mediate."  The gap between the Gaddafi family enterprise and the insurrectionists is too vast and deep to bridge by any conceivable effort at mediation.  The years of repression and corruption and the alienation of the majority of the population from the current government admit of no compromise now that the battle has been joined.  Every rebel who is killed and every non-combatant who is caught in the crossfire serve to assure that nothing less than total victory will be acceptable to the insurgents.

What Sr Chavez, Director General Moussa, and Brother Leader do not understand is that the dead are dictating policy.  The corpses of those killed by the government forces along with those who died over the years at the hands of the Gaddifi security forces demand nothing less than a total restructuring of Libyan polity and society.  It is offensive insurgency of the most classic sort.

The Arab League, the African Union, the UN would be well advised to limit their involvement in Libya to the humanitarian aspects of the conflict.  The same applies to the EU and US.  Unless the Gaddafi forces resort to their stockpile of mustard agent which, while not in weaponized form, is not unusable, the West should restrain itself from any action beyond the humanitarian.  The Libyans started this affray for and from reasons which are organic to the country.  They will have to finish it.  Anything else will distort the process probably with consequences which will prove even more bloody and prolonged.

It is hard to write that.  The emotionally satisfying approach is that of a quick invasion by competent Western forces with the result that Brother Leader and company would be laid out by the heels rapidly and decisively. But, emotions don't count.  The reality is that the mess was made by Libyans.  It can only be cleaned and rectified by Libyans.  Only the Libyans can build a nation--if they want to.

This means that the professionals and clowns alike must restrain themselves.  They must do the hardest of hard jobs--standing by and limiting the human suffering to the greatest extent possible without seeking to impose a fast track solution on the situation.

Chavez Continues To Prove The Obvious

Some people just don't ever learn. High on the list of those who are learning impaired are socialists. Topping that heap is Hugo (The Mouth of the South) Chavez whose Bolivarian Revolution--"Socialism for the Twenty-First Century" is coming an every bigger cropper with each passing day.

While Hugo's weekly hours of rant on Venezuelan radio/television remind one of Castro's original brand albeit with a sense of humor, the paratrooper-turned-strongman is not simply a clown with delusions of adequacy. He is a potential danger to the stability and peace of at least a portion of South America as his recurrent threats and bloviations against neighboring Columbia make clear.

He is also a potential menace to the security of the US. Some of the potential menace is indirect, the consequence of Venezuela becoming a major drug shipment center. But, the real potential for danger arises from the ever closer relations between Chavez' government and that of Iran, and, even more important in the emerging threat category, the use of Venezuela by Hezbollah and Hamas personnel.

The combination of drug smuggling; the presence of dedicated, well-trained specialists in terror and asymmetrical warfare; Iranian money and other resources; Chavez' personal, visceral hatred, fear, and loathing of the US; and the collapsing Venezuelan economy does not bode well for American national interest or security. The apparent instability of Chavez' psyche coupled with the evident erosion of the Venezuelan social compact under economic stress does nothing to reassure one that the Hero Of The Bolivarian Revolution might not continence, even foster a clandestine strike against US territory even before launching an adventure into Columbia with his new Russian supplied weaponry.

The implosion of the economy in Venezuela, the fifth largest source of US oil, has reached levels which must be alarming to the Vaca of Caracas. Inflation is reported at thirty-five percent--and rising as if Hugo is bent on imitating his mentors in Iran. Rolling blackouts caused by the decaying nature of the country's hydroelectric system and complicated by the decay of its oil fired power plants hit all the country's larger cities for several hours (or more) per day.

The darkened streets of Caracas must be a boon to the criminals of the city. Caracas has a homicide rate which surpasses even that of Cuidad Juarez where the murders are so commonplace that they are now lumped together in the "other news" section of the daily papers. Given the loss of employment in Caracas, the growth of crime and murder is not surprising.

Somewhat more surprising is the fact that Venezuela's downhill slide started a couple of years ago during the period of record high oil prices. This counter-intuitive condition can be attributed simply and solely to the sheer incompetence and total ineptitude of the socialists who have taken over so much of the country's extraction and manufacturing base and a fair chunk of its agricultural products distribution system.

While South America is generally on a fast road to recovery from the Great Recession with Peru, Chile and Brazil pegged to have growth rates this year at or above four percent, Venezuela is projected to have a contraction of at least two percent and perhaps as much five. This decline comes on top of last years negative growth of 3.3 percent.

All the decline can be attributed to the moribund nature of the private sector coupled with the exceptional inefficiency of the nationalized industries and businesses. In short, Chavez has been proving once again the sad stories of Cuba and other adopters of the socialist brand of command economies: Socialism does not work.

Chavez loudly and almost without letup pins the rap for the failure of his Bolivarian brand on the sinister manipulations of the US. To make sure his message is the only one heard, the Mouth has closed all opposition outlets, jailed dissidents, and, most recently, launched a risible counterattack on Twitter. But no matter how creative and insistent Chavez might be, the combination of oppression and propaganda can neither conceal nor reverse the structural realities at home.

Money blown on weapons cannot be spent on urgently necessary repairs to and improvements of the country's degenerate infrastructure. Efforts directed toward militarizing the nation's youth, suppressing dissent, excoriating neighbors, pouring vitriol on the US and other evil capitalists cannot go toward identifying and rectifying such basic, enervating difficulties as the flight of the middle class, the technically competent, the educated, the people whose energies and talents are so vital to the collective success of the nation and the state.

Looking ahead, it is necessary to ask, "Sr Chavez, when the verbal mongering of war proves insufficient, when the blame game fails, when the bottom continues to fall out of your revolution, what then?"

The underlying anxiety must be that Chavez will resort finally to the reality of war in a desperate attempt to rally a disenchanted population around the national flag--and his leadership. A "splendid little war" perhaps. One with Columbia might do. Or a border dispute with Brazil, or even a tiny naval contretemps with the US. All these are notional at the moment, but none are impossible, particularly should Chavez' party come out on the short end of the vote in the parliamentary elections next September.

The popularity of the volatile Chavez is currently lower than that of President Obama in the US. Hugo is aware of this unpleasant and most inconvenient of truths; so also are his satraps, lackeys, and goons whose phony-baloney jobs are at stake. Balancing this is Hugo's experience based awareness that elections can be jiggered even with Jimmy Carter looking on.

But jiggering and the inevitable post-jiggering criticism from without and dissent from within can take the fun out of being Strongman-For-Life. It is at trying times like this that a re-elected dictator needs some help from his friends. Something to take away the pain of all those accusations, all that finger-pointing and name-calling. A little balm for the embattled soul of a man dedicated to his people.

Sure, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua will leap to the call. They all are, after all, the most fraternal of states, all possessed of a weak, socialist economy; a politics of victimization; and united in a common distaste for the US. But, their sympathy might not be enough to offset the difficulties in which Hugo stands.

He may need heavier guns in his corner. A more potent--and successful source of succor.

Ah, yes, there is a friendly country which meets that description--Iran. Tehran has a fine record of staring down the US and the rest of the Security Council. It sure would be comforting to get a bit of understanding and support from that quarter.

In answering, Iran may call for a bit of the old quid pro quo.

For the quid of diplomatic, military, and economic support, Hugo might be asked, politely of course, by someone from Tehran, "Say, Sr Chavez, how about giving our guys from Hezbollah a little fraternal assistance on a trip to the Land Up North?"

That one could hurt--us.

Hey, Chief! What About Chavez The Terrorist?

President Obama and (as he loves to put it--repeatedly) "his team" had best take a second, longer, and much closer look at Hugo Chavez and his merry crew of friends and colleagues both inside and without the "Bolivarian Revolution." The president's previously expressed view that Hugo (The Mouth of the South) Chavez does not represent a threat to the US or its interests just does not square with reality.

The finding the other day by the Spanish judiciary holding a direct linkage existed between Chavez's regime, the narco/criminal/insurgent group FARC, and the Basque separatist insurgent entity ETA is but one more (almost superfluous) nail in the Obama version of the Rodney King Dictum: "Can't we just all get along together?" Mr King's plaintive cry was both touching and justifiable; for the president of the United States to echo it in practice is destructive of national interest and appropriate only to someone living in an alternative reality.

For reasons both personal and political Hugo Chavez must oppose the US, must be hostile to its interests, must operate in any and all ways possible to undermine American efforts and policies both in the region, and, if possible, elsewhere in the world. He is personally more hostile to the US than were such obvious American foes as Stalin and Hitler. For them the opposition was merely business, the requirement of policy per se. For Chavez the motivations come from some deep personal well of antipathy as well as the dictates of politics.

As the Spanish judge noted in his findings Chavez's regime engaged the services of both FARC and ETA in the task of pursuing targets marked for assassination. The assassinations were intended to terrorize opponents of Chavez both internal and foreign based--most notably the president of Columbia, Uribe. In short, Chavez is the sponsor of terrorism.

Chavez and his regime have cultivated close and growing ties with Hezbollah and Hamas as well as the chief sponsor of these groups, Iran. The "Bolivarian" government has provided facilities and support to representatives and agents of both Hezbollah and Hamas. This means he is just as much a sponsor of terrorism as Iran.

There is an increasing body of information showing that operatives of both jihadist groups are working closely with assorted narcotrafficker syndicates in Venezuela, which has become an increasingly critical shipment point for product destined to both Europe and North America. This development implies that Hamas and Hezbollah personnel as well as their Iranian or Syrian "advisors" will have increasing access to the sophisticated smuggling systems established to funnel contraband into the US.

The evidence was clear a year ago. It is far more so today. Venezuela is a state sponsor of terrorism. The only missing link when Mr Obama took office was a straightforward finding by a court of competence to the effect that Venezuela aided, abetted, or engaged in the use of terror as an instrument of state policy.

There is no missing link now thanks to the ability and courage of a single Spanish judge. And, make no mistake about it, the judge was correct. His correctness has been underscored by the howls and squeals of protest and denial originating in Caracas. The desperate wiggling of Chavez and Company is seen best with the recycling of the Interpol discredited Venezuelan assertion that evidence extracted from the laptop once belonging to FARC's number two honcho by the Columbian government more than a year ago was counterfeit.

Sorry, Hugo, that wingless airplane will not fly. Interpol is not, as you allege, a mere tool of the Yankee imperialists. Your position to the contrary is akin to the Iranian allegation that the IAEA has been taken over by the US.

The time has come for a change in American policy. It is time to add Venezuela to Iran, Cuba, Sudan, and Syria as a state which sponsors terrorism. It is time for the consequences of that designation to be applied to Caracas and environs. To put it bluntly, it is time for the Obama administration and the president to encounter one more unpleasant reality: Hugo Chavez and his regime are hostile to the US and a clear threat to its interests in the region as well as here at home.

A nice smile and a quick willingness to say, "I am not George W. Bush," does not win friends nor influence states. These politically valuable features do not make the US any less likely to be threatened or even attacked by those who wish us ill. That group includes not only Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, or Islamists only; it includes Venezuela's Maximum Leader as well.

Mr Obama, Hugo Chavez and his "Bolivarian Revolution" have met the test as a state sponsor of terrorism. Don't you have the intellectual and moral courage necessary to match that of a single Spanish judge and accept reality as it has been shown to be?

The Great Anglo-Saxon Conspiracy Defeated Again

It's tough to be a native English speaker nowadays. It was bad enough a while back as one French intellectual after another lambasted the great Anglophone conspiracy--only to be followed to the cameras and microphones by a parade of Parisian politicos doing the same.

The Spanish (Socialist) government took up the bash-the-Anglos cudgel late last week. Madrid has blamed their homegrown fiscal crisis on the Anglo-Saxon gang, alleging assorted sinister but unspecified actions undertaken by this secret cabal which have intentionally undermined the solvency of Spain (along with, presumably, the rest of the "PIGS" group.)

Now, the one time colonies of Spain have entered the lists. The thirty-three countries south of the Rio Grande have resolved to form their own Latin America/Caribbean group of nations. Pointedly excluded were the more or less anglophone states of Canada and the US. (It appears that the Spanish and Portuguese speakers of the region were willing to allow Jamaica and other residue of the old British Empire hang around in the new and so far unnamed group.)

The US State Department viewed the move which was spearheaded by Brazil and Mexico with apparent equanimity. Probably the folks at Foggy Bottom were privately pleased that the assorted hotheads of the Lands Down South including Hugo Chavez, Ewo Morales, Raul Castro, and the deathless Ortega brothers didn't try a coup in the now rather stodgy Organization of American States which is a monument to the Good Neighbor policy of FDR and, like many other ideas of that long-ago period has outlived its utility.

Feeling robust as all get out following this slap at the Anglophones, the representatives of Latin America and the Caribbean countries lined up in full-throated support of Argentina in its current dust-up with the UK. Invoking assorted elderly UN resolutions the delegates found the oil exploration underway in the territorial waters of the Falkland Island dependency to be all kinds of icky-poo, a threat to world peace, a slap in the face of the international community, and a gross offense against history.

After working themselves into an appropriately high dudgeon over economic exploitation, the glories of nationalism, and the evils of capitalism, the delegates condemned the UK, applauded Argentina, and called upon the "international community" to stop the theft of Argentinian patrimony. Argentina claimed a great diplomatic victory.

Fer sure, dudes.

Behind the rhetoric is the reality. Argentina is an economic basket case with no immediate end in sight. The government is feeling pressure. And, the pressure is both real and growing, the inevitable legacy of decades of poorly conceived and worse executed experiments in central state socialism under both civilian and military dictatorships.

Buenos Aires wants to be bought off. A goodly percentage of the potential oil revenues would do quite nicely, thank you. Particularly if all the risks of exploration and development are borne by UK and other countries' companies and investors. Just slip Buenos Aires a percentage, say, forty percent, as hush money, and the ancient and quite unsuccessfully prosecuted claim to the Falklands will be extinguished with equal silence.

Brazil, which has large potential oil and natural gas reserves in its exclusive economic zone waters would be happy if Argentina had control (or at least a portion of "the say") over the Falklands' oil. This eventuality would make competition easier to manage. The UK is likely to be more hard headed in its development and marketing of the oil reserves, which would limit Brazil's competitive advantage globally. The relatively less efficient Argentinian approach would be to Brazil's longer term advantage.

The same argument applies to Mexico and Venezuela. Both countries have significant reserves which are less and less efficiently extracted and brought to the international market. Neither country sees any percentage (other than negative) in the Falkland product being sold by the aggressive and efficient companies of the UK (and quite probably) the US. Socialism of either the Mexican or (to a greater extent) the Venezuelan sort cannot hang with the front porch dogs of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. And, both governments know it very well. Better see the Falklands oil fields under Hispanophone control.

While the Obama administration and many in the "Progressive Caucus"of the Democratic Party may think they are ordained to preside over the "graceful decline" of the US, there are few in the American public let alone the American business community who would agree that our best days are long in our past. The US, the West, and the world need oil if for no other reason than it takes time--a lot of time--to bring the nuclear reactors and alternative energy prime movers on line in significant quantity. The oil of the Falklands as well as other already known deposits are necessary to keep the world running as the alternatives are developed.

This means the US has little realistic choice other than supporting the UK in its contretemps with Argentina. It probably does not mean war is looming, but the potential for that undesired option is lowered if the US quickly and firmly plants its flag alongside that of the UK.

Given that it is both welcome and fortuitous that the assorted LatAm and Caribbean states have decided to form an English-free zone, it is better for all parties that the new outfit serve as the forum for the Falkland dispute. Lord knows, nothing will happen outside the realm of talk and posturing.

Meanwhile, the adults of the Anglo-Saxon conspiracy can get on with the job of providing necessary basic resources for the world.

War--The Last Resort Of A Failed Dictator

Hugo Chavez is at it again. Mucking around in Honduras was not enough. Proclaiming the "Bolivarian Revolution" didn't hack it. Admiring the legs of Secretary of State Rice didn't meet his needs sufficiently. Now, Hugo, the Mouth of the South, warns of war. Warns in way which threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Under the heavy hand of Chavez, Venezuela has become an economic basket case rivaling Iran. High unemployment, the edge of hyperinflation, a fleeing middle class, declining oil production, and plummeting oil revenues have placed Chavez very much on the defensive at home.

His own political base among the poorest of the citizenry are disenchanted to say the least. They are fed up with Caracas being the most murderous city in the world. They have revolted against Chavez' plan to nationalize country clubs, golf courses, hotels--measures which cost his constituency their jobs.

When all else fails, when oratory and slogans lose their appeal, when bluster rings ever more hollow, what is a good strongman supposed to do? That's right, bucko, crank up an external threat, the shadow of war, the spectre of the Yanquis landing the Marines and paratroops on the sacred soil of the motherland.

Chavez and his very loud noise machine have boomed the message of "Uncle Sam is coming!" with ever increasing frequency and exaggeration ever since Columbia and the US signed a basing agreement allowing US personnel (less than a thousand) to be based at Columbian air force installations for counter-drug and counter-insurgent surveillance missions. The call to form "peoples' militias" rings throughout the land.

Now the ever vigilant Chavez has ordered troops, some fifteen thousand of them, to the Columbian border. Purportedly the move is defensive, to counter drug smuggling and protect recent mineral discoveries.

The pretext is shallow. The real reason is to further pump loyalty to regime by a good, down home war scare. As usual, Chavez told the nation that the US was getting ready to invade along with the "puppets" of Columbia. The very absurdity of the claim would excite gales of derisive laughter were the situation not inherently volatile.

Columbia has stated it will appeal to the UN Security Council and the Organization of American States for assistance in the face of the Chavez threat. Bogata is right to be worried. Chavez' regime has supported the long running and hard pressed FARC. FARC is a hybrid of collapsing insurgency and narcotrafficker. Without Venezuelan assistance it would be on the ropes--terminally. Beyond that, Chavez has waged economic warfare on Columbia, sought to undercut the country's currency, and generally acted in the most boorish way possible.

Ecuador, which shares a border with Columbia, is a partner of Chavez' "Bolivarian Revolution" and is dependent to a great extent on Venezuela for support and assistance as is its duly elected (once more let's hear it for democracy in action) strongman, Ewo Morales. Morales can be depended upon to follow Chavez' lead as it has with respect to providing sanctuary of a precarious sort to FARC elements.

The Columbian military due to its long experience bashing the bush after both drug rings and FARC (as well as other pseudo-insurgent groups) is superior in all real world respects to the forces of Venezuela. No influx of Russian arms or Iranian Revolutionary Guard advisors will change the basic calculus of military power in the short run.

Nonetheless, the Bolivarian jefe grande is playing a dangerous game. A very dangerous game. It is very easy for an unintended war to be started by a single action of ill-considered bravado. The probability of such an unintended act occurring is directly proportional to the level of incendiary rhetoric pouring from Chavez.

A war once started will not be so easy to stop. While the US, the UN, and the OAS might all want to stop any Columbian-Venezuelan conflict ASAP, it may not be so easy to do in practice. The Columbian government might want to abate the Chavez nuisance for once and all. The Uribe government might not be alone in the desire. Brazil has not been comfortable with either Chavez' rhetoric or his arms build up.

There are deep fissures not only in Venezuela but also in Ecuador and Bolivia--the entire Bolivarian Revolution. The start of an interstate war might also see the commencement of internal fighting in all three nations.

Even a rapidly imposed end to any war between Venezuela and Columbia would not bring an automatic end to the (virtually inevitable) internal fighting in each and every one of the Bolivarian threesome. This condition might spread to adjacent countries and would, at the very least, promote regional instability.

The context for assessing the impact of any (so far) hypothetical Venezuelan-Columbian war is the social fabric of the South American nations generally. Many, perhaps most, of these have experienced profound social and economic stresses from the rush to globalization and privatization forced upon them by the neo-liberals of the IMF and World Bank (to say nothing of the US during both the Clinton and W. Bush administrations.)

The net effect of these unwanted and primarily negative changes has been the growth of political disaffiliation. Political disaffiliation is the necessary (and often the sufficient) condition for insurgency.

The Obama administration had best work fast and hard to prevent war. As we have zero leverage on Chavez, this means putting the cautionary pressure on Uribe in Columbia. He and his government do not want war any more than the US. He can be relied upon to exercise the maximum of restraint.

If, however, the Chavez forces fire the first few shots, there will be little if anything Uribe can do and survive politically except order his army into full and hopefully effective combat. This would include operations against Venezuela directly. The war will escalate--fast.

The ball is completely in Chavez' court. All us outsiders can do is hope that for once in the man's life, rationality will prevail. Or, if not rationality, a sense of self-preservation.

Then There Is (Always) Hugo Chavez

It's hard to know whether to see the humor in Hugo (Mouth of the South) Chavez or not.

On the one hand, the man's gift for verbosity, which was exhibited in all its varied moods not only at the UN General Assembly but in his one-on-one interview with Larry King, provides much ground for amusement.

On the other, this self-anointed successor to Fidel Castro and single-handed inventor of the latest gimcrack form of "socialism" dubbed "Bolivarianism," has shown a definite propensity for authoritarianism, suppression, and regional troublemaking.

His anti-Americanism is rather much standard issue and nothing to be particularly concerned over. His Yankee bashing plays well with his base and helps divert attention from the decaying economy. There is no surprise that Chavez has blamed that on the US as if the US alone has caused the global decline in oil prices, a reality which has hit Venezuela hard.

Chavez needs the myth of the US-as-Empire in order to keep his hands on the levers of power. This is why he has pumped the recent not-quite-finalized agreement between the US and Columbia to allow US drug enforcement efforts including those of the military to be based on seven Columbian military installations into a full-fledged invasion threat.

Without the scary Americans, questions might be asked even among Venezuela's poorest people--Chavez' base--about why he is spending a couple of billion scarce bucks on Russian arms rather than on them. A Latin American dictator has historically possessed two choices if he wanted to stay in power. The first was to proclaim his wedding to the anti-Communist status quo and get the unquestioning support of American administrations one after the other. The second option was to announce often and loudly that "The Yankees are coming! The Marines are landing! The CIA is trying to kill me!"

Chavez took the second route even though the Clinton administration treated him with the kindest of kid gloves and the Obama administration is doing likewise. The man in the middle, George W. Bush, did not and that was a mistake. The animus held by the Bush/Cheney administration for any anti-American leftist with a large mouth provided Chavez with all the material he needed to play repression as self-defense against the empire.

Probably more through preoccupation with matters of larger import than the coming of the Hugo Chavez Bolivarian Revolution, the Clinton White House and State Department rather ignored Venezuela. This was the best course to take. It should have been followed by the Bush/Cheney crew as well, but, blinded as always by neocon ideology, they took the Mouth of the South seriously. By doing so they transformed Chavez from an irrelevancy to a problem.

During the years of Bush/Cheney, Chavez not only tied himself to the aging "socialists" of Cuba and Nicaragua, but to a pair of ideological companions, Ewo Morales, the elected Los Indios jefe grande of Bolivia and Rafael Correa, the US educated economist turned Ecuadorian president. The "Bolivarian Revolution" had two bloodless conquests and now had to be taken seriously as a political force in South America.

The "Bolivarian" movement promises "Socialism For the Twenty-First Century" but so far seems to be the same old sort of destroy-the-bourgeois-raise-the-proletariat approach to economic, social, and political life. The "Bolivarian" version does have the add-on of oil and natural gas which should provide the "socialists" of all three countries with the means to alleviate poverty, end illiteracy, heal the sick, feed the hungry, and generally bring the paradise on Earth which"socialism" always promises those on the bottom of the heap.

In the past the advent of a socialist regime has generally meant the enhancement of government power, the increasing restrictions of customary rights and immunities enjoyed by citizens, a hike in "defense" expenditures, and breathless "revolutionary" oratory in all the official media. This pattern has been followed by all three members of the Chavez headed "Bolivarian" movement.

Social unrest, middle-class flight, and the other usual accessories of a socialist takeover have also been observed in all three countries with Venezuela exhibiting them to the greatest degree. How any of this has benefited the "wretched" of each is unclear. Perhaps saying, "Well, he is one of us, one of the poor, a man of the masses," makes up for continued inequalities of economic and political power and social status. Perhaps it even provides comfort when stores lack milk or other basic commodities. (No, Hugo, the US didn't do that either.)

The US and other Western countries have much to answer for in South America given the overall impact of "globalization" and "de-regulation" on the people in a number of South American countries. The rush to globalization, which started in the Clinton administration and continued with some acceleration under its successors, did much damage to those least able to absorb it throughout much of South America.

It is not surprising that many accepted that change, radical change, was called for in the wake of "privatization" and its handmaiden "globalization." It is unfortunate, and for the US a potentially major problem that the radical change taken brought ambitious strongmen typified by Hugo Chavez to power.

Chavez has established relations with both Iran and its proxy Hezbollah so as to establish outposts of state sponsored Islamist jihadism in the Western Hemisphere--which is a threat compared to which the supposed threat posed by Communist Cuba pales into deserved insignificance. He has clear ambitions of becoming some sort of leader in the global South.

The recently concluded Second South America-Africa Summit held in Venezuela and graced by such as Colonel Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is a fine demonstration of this. It is easy, quite tempting really, to toss off this grandiose meeting as being irrelevant.

The easy temptation must be resisted. There is quite a bit of barely concealed frustration, pent up hostility, resident in both South America and Africa. The totem of victim status is waved quickly, easily, and with great effect by leaders from these regions. The message of both Chavez and Gaddafi that the "imperial nations" owe compensation for the presumed exploitation of their colonial adventures has wide appeal. The increasing populations and decreasing prices for agricultural and extracted commodities have combined to generate increasing poverty and its concomitants, resentment and envy in many places in both continents.

Hugo Chavez has shown a real ability at exploiting and capitalizing upon latent resentments, unsuppressed envy, and hardly covert hatred. He is young, ambitious beyond measure, and highly able. He is more of a regional politician than Fidel Castro ever was. His internal politics and external diplomacy shows that.

Managing the problems and mitigating the potential threat presented by Chavez is a genuine challenge for the Obama administration and State Department. Benign neglect will no longer suffice as it did in the days of Bill Clinton. The opposition of the Bush/Cheney period would be counterproductive. What remains is the middle path of accepting Chavez as a fact on the ground while letting him know politely but unmistakably that there are lines he cannot cross without severe consequences.

Hugo Chavez said both at the UNGA and on the Larry King broadcast that he wants to be treated with respect, the respect of an equal. Take him at his word. Let him know there are limits and what the limits are. Let him know what the consequences will be if he violates the limits.

After all, friends treat friends with honesty, Hugo.

They're Speaking Arabic In Mexico

The MSM are not up to speed on this story. Nor are many within We the People. It is, however, a tale with many implications--none of them pleasant for us.

The Iranian supported and to a large extent controlled terrorist entity Hezbollah is hard at work in Mexico. The Boys In Turbans are active in establishing working relations with the narcotrafficking cartels South of the Border. With success.

The increasingly warm relations between Hugo (The Mouth of the South) Chavez and the mullahs of Iran are disturbing in and of themselves. The establishment of a banking arrangement between Iran and Venezuela serves as a ready conduit for the increasing activities of Hezbollah not only in that country but throughout South and Central America, including Mexico. The shipments of weapons and equipment from Iran to Venezuela are not for the benefit of the latter's armed forces. (With a two gigabuck order on Russian books and funded by generous Russian loans, the New Model Army of Chavez has no need for assistance from Iran.)

No. The weapons, the explosive manufacturing equipment, the money are for the use of Hezbollah as it penetrates Latin America. They are for the use of the Party of God as it establishes firm connections with the cartels and narco-insurgents from Peru to Colombia to Mexico.

A month ago the tip of the Hezbollah iceberg was revealed in New York with the indictment of one Jamal Yousef on arms trafficking charges. Yousef is alleged to have sought to sell a variety of "military grade" arms to a person he believed to be a representative of the Columbian narco-insurgent group FARC. Within the indictment some very interesting and disturbing points can be found.

Hezbollah maintains active operations in Mexico which are directly connected to both weapons and drug smuggling. The activities are not limited to any one Mexican cartel but are spread among at least three such as to cover the entire border between Mexico and the US.

The Turban Crew is willing and able to join forces with any local narco-insurgent group anywhere in Latin America which is seeking to destabilize the status quo regime. This includes Mexico where at least a couple of the cartels have expanded their goals beyond drug smuggling or mere crime to political ends.

As the connections between Hezbollah and the assorted Mexican narco-trafficking cartels expand so also does the ability of Hezbollah to insert weapons, lethal materials, and personnel into the US. This potential expands as the Mexican cartels extend their operations throughout Central and South America. In short, Hezbollah has tied into a "one stop shop" for smuggling any sort of deadly goody as well as the necessary personnel into Yanqui Land.

As Hugo Chavez grows ever more cozy with the Iranians--and his intentions in that direction are quite clear as is indicated by his agreement to provide Iran with 200,000 barrels per day of refined petroleum products--the potential of Hezbollah to conduct operations throughout the Western Hemisphere grows in tandem. This strongly implies that the Obama administration had best take a much stronger approach with the Chavez regime.

Mexico is a happy hunting ground for an anti-American entity with a lot of money and a firm agenda. Hezbollah is such a group. Its cooperation with the narco-trafficking cartels boosts the threat these represent to the stability of the Mexican government. With backing from the Chavez regime, which is not noted for having small ambitions, the possibility of the current instability in Mexico increasing is enhanced.

This reality implies that the Obama administration had best take a stronger approach to assisting Mexico. It also implies even more strongly that the Mexican government had best reevaluate its hyper-nationalist stance regarding foreign investment in and development of the new off-shore oil discoveries as well as rebuilding the decayed infrastructure of the older fields. Oil is the answer to much of Mexico's current difficulties of poverty and lacks in both physical and human infrastructure requirements. But, foreign money and expertise is necessary for this to be accomplished.

There is a powerful possibility that Mexico will experience in the not too distant future a combination of Islamist jihadist and narco-trafficking groups not dissimilar to that which is seen in Afghanistan. It is not that Islam qua Islam is important in the Mexican venue but rather that the political goals of the Islamist jihadist group intersects with the goals of both the narco-traffickers and quite probably the expansive goals of Hugo Chavez.

A political agenda predicated on fear and loathing of the US has produced strange bedmates in the past. It is doing so today. It can do so to an even greater extent in the near future. There is no bright and shining line which can be drawn between the Islamist jihadists of Hezbollah, the profit and power driven goals of the narco-traffickers, and the hemispheric delusions of Chavez.

Far from there being any inherent bars between such different partners, there are strong imperatives for a tight marriage of convenience. Over time the marriage might even be strengthened by the appeal of Islamist jihadist ideology for young men with a cultural background of machismo and a pervasive sense of present day hopelessness--and the warrior ethos of Islam can make for converts, floods of converts.

Religion, particularly a religion which provides emotional release, a sense of personal worth, and control of destiny has always been a key factor in the social and cultural dynamics of Latin America. As traditional Catholicism lost its appeal by an over-identification with the ruling elites, alternatives such as Liberation Theology and, more recently, Charismatic and Evangelical forms of Protestant Christianity have risen. Arguably, and using Africa as the model case, Islam, particularly in its Islamist forms, can have a similar or even greater attraction to the marginalized, disenfranchised, dis-empowered, and ambitious young men of the region.

Yes sir, folks, it's one more foreign policy challenge for the Nice Young Man From Chicago and his Secretary of State, The Not So Nice Older Woman From New York. And, it is a hell of a lot closer to both places than is Afghanistan.

With Only A Left Wing It's Easy To Go Hysterical

Hugo Chavez, the 21st Century's equivalent of Fidel Castro, is pumping his reputation as the Joe Biden of the Andes. His latest case of rhetorical dyspepsia alleges that the US is secretly building an invasion force in Columbia and will soon cross into the Motherland of the Bolivarian Revolution.

Hugo's junior partner in the Neo-Castroite Renewal, Rafael Correa, jefe grande of Ecuador, echoes the his patron's anxieties but in a more sotto voce manner. The Hero of Los Indios must be feeling disappointed that the hated and dreaded Yankees have not gone home after he rejected renewal of the American lease on an Ecuadorian base for counter-narcotics surveillance flights.

Now Hugo loves to bloviate. He loves to excoriate. He loves to bluster and threaten. That is probably why he likes dealing with Iran. Those folks are just like him at heart.

No doubt Hugo particularly loves to play the victim role in a self-created, self-written drama featuring the US as Chief Villain and Columbia as the Villain's Assistant. That is why the finding of elderly Swedish anti-armor rockets in the hands of FARC was simply one more base plot created by the imperialists without a shred of truth.

While these aging AT-4 ATGMs are scarcely "sophisticated," they would have been of some assistance to the FARC guerrillas and drug traffickers. There is no arguing that the missiles did come from Venezuela. The Swedes have confirmed the devices were sold to that country. But, no one, not even Uncle Sam and the Colombian government are saying that Hugo was in on the deal. There is simply too much shrinkage from the military arsenals in Venezuela to be sure of that.

On the other hand there is simply too much evidence that both Chavez and Correa would be thrilled by a FARC success in "reactionary" Colombia. And, that both have worked assiduously to bring that thrill into reality.

While Colombia has a real, documentable reason to be peeved with both of these hard left leaning leaders, Bogota has been remarkably calm in the face of repeated provocation. Not so with Sr Chavez and Sr Correa.

Chavez has "frozen" relations with Colombia one more time. As a result the Colombian peso fell nearly two percent since the country's (legal) trade depends much on Venezuela, its second largest trading partner.

Not content with that, Chavez has raised the noise level with his expressed fears that the Marines, or at least the New Mexican National Guard was coming--soon. Hugo needs to take a Xanax or two, perhaps review his collection of Condy Rice photos. He needs to get a grip.

The US is in the process of negotiating with Colombia for the use of three air bases for use in surveillance flights targeted on countering drugs and insurgency within Colombia. This is not out of line considering our six billion dollar investment between 2001 and 2008 in assisting Colombia fight the drug runners and their insurgent sidekicks within the country. If the fourteen hundred or so military and civilian DoD personnel in Colombia constitute an invasion force, then El Presidente Chavez ought to reconsider his country's defense capacities.

Anyway it is not a done deal. There are elements in the Colombian Senate which want to use the proposal as a lever to get a free trade treaty out of the US. To date the Progressive Caucus has opposed this averring human rights abuses on the part of the Colombian security forces, an accusation which is far from baseless. Or there may be other deal sweeteners being considered by these Colombian politicos.

(Recall that Colombia has a long history of wanting more to go through with a seemingly done deal. That is why Theodore Roosevelt created a country, Panama, in order to get his canal dug over the obdurate attitude of a handful of Colombian senators.)

Sr Chavez and Sr Correa need to stop blustering, quit the victim game. Both have been consolidating one-man-rule states. Both are facing very real internal problems. Both have large segments of their population which are not supportive of the "Bolivarian Revolution." Both are ineptly presiding over economic degradation, political repression, and social dislocation.

All of the diversions, from Honduras to the new Colombian fracas, do not alter the basic reality one little bit. The "Bolivarian Revolution" in common with all too many leftist experiments, including the one in progress in the US, leads down a rough and rutted road. Shouting, "victim!" will not keep the wheels on when the ruts get too deep and the bumps too rough.

And, that's a fact, Jack.

Obama's Dreamy Drift In Democratic Fantasyland

In keeping with his evident belief in a post-modern view of history (see the Cairo Address as one example) which holds that every person's "narrative" is equally valid, President Obama and, thus, his foreign policy crew hold that the disposed leftist and wannabe strongman of Honduras, Manuel Zeylaya, is "the only constitutional president" of the country. Only one small detail eludes the US president and one time professor of constitutional law.

(The beauty of the post-modern world view is that a person may pick the "narrative" he feels most emotionally in tune with regardless of objective truth. For, you see, post-modernism does not admit of any objective truth.)

The removal of Zelaya was undertaken by the Honduran military pursuant to constitutionally mandated processes. The action was taken in compliance with a Supreme Court order. It was also validated by the Honduran Congress. While the defenestration of Zelaya might have been a bit unseemly in its execution, it did not contravene the country's constitution.

The mixers and troublemakers in the current contretemps were Zelaya's fellow leftists, Hugo Chavez and Miguel d'Escoto. Without the blatant, full-throated support of these two champions of the vox populi, Zelaya would have faded into the obscurity he so richly deserves.

Hugo has made the facilities of his increasingly autocratic regime available to Zelaya. The highly visible attempted return to Honduras by the ousted pretender to "president-for-life" status and thus the demonstrations and (single) death were made possible by Hugo having loaned an aircraft to Manuel. Over the weekend the former Honduran president took to the Venezuelan airwaves on a Hugo controlled TV station to rant against the "ogres" who ousted him.

Unlike his sponsors Chavez and d'Escoto, the once and perhaps future strongman of Honduras refrained from attacking the US for its alleged role in the removal process. This silence was strictly tactical.

Zelaya wants more US support. He doesn't deserve the support he has received so far, but no matter, he wants more. President Obama and SecState Clinton have ignored the realities of the internal politics of Honduras. They have overlooked the nearly monolithic opposition to Zelaya within the Honduran upper and middle classes, the Catholic Church, the press, and the institutions of state.

They have even managed not to read the opinion poll conducted recently by a Mexican polling outfit which saw Zelaya at the bottom of the "trusted leader" list. They have even managed to turn a Nelsonian eye to the reality that corruption, drug driven violence, and crime generally have been on the severe uptick during Zelaya's term in office.

The Honduran people made a mistake when they elected Zelaya. They came to recognise and repent of the mistake. Most were willing to hunker down and let the inefficient, ineffective, and loud mouthed man finish his term while hoping that not much more damage would accrue. But, Zelaya's blatant attempt to subvert the intention of the constitution by seeking a referendum which would allow him to emulate his master, Hugo Chavez, by becoming de facto president for all eternity, was one insult too many.

True, the referendum might have gone against Zelaya but why take chances given the record of electoral corruption throughout the region--including the fun, games, tricks, and general zaniness engaged in by Chavez in what passes for presidential elections on the shores of Lake Maracaibo.

Or, that was the way the Supreme Court saw the matter. The court ruled against holding the referendum. Zelaya tried to overrule the court. He failed. And, the soldiers came at dawn.

Except for those Hondurans at the bottom of the economic heap who fell for the standard issue pap of pie-in-the-sky socialist oratory pouring forth from Zelaya's copious oral cavity, the people of the much beset country breathed a sigh of relief as the tail light of Zelaya's flight disappeared over the horizon. Oscar Arias, who is a man of undoubted integrety and probity as well as political and diplomatic skill, failed to bring a compromise between Zelaya (who didn't even deign to show up) and the current government of Honduras.

The interim president of Honduras (named by the congress not the generals) Roberto Micheletti has offered amnesty to Sr Zelaya should he return to face Honduran justice. This is a lot better offer than the customary one in past military coups--a firing squad. More, Micheletti has made encouraging noises about holding elections before the currently scheduled date in November. Again, this is not the customary practice in "military coups."

If Mr Obama were not so lost in the haze of some fantasyland understanding of democracy, he would be standing beside the new Honduran government. He would be welcoming both the amnesty offer and the re-scheduling of elections. He would acknowledge that while the military's removal of Zelaya lacked a touch of class, it was done according to the rules. Honduran rules.

If Mr Obama were not so much a prisoner of the post-modern, he would at the very least both understand and publicly state that democracy was in a heck of a lot better shape in Honduras than it was in Venezuela (and other states bitten by the "Bolivarian" bug.)

Ah, but reality has never been a favorite of the Nice Young Man From Chicago.

Getting Back To Business--Central America

It is time for the Obama administration to get a grip on the realities in Central and South America. Instead of wasting time, energy, political capital, and prestige on the attempt to resurrect a man, Manuel Zelaya, it should be using its efforts to seek stability in countries now being wracked with the effects of drug traffic driven crime, corruption, and violence.

The reality is simple. Sr Zelaya is shown by a recent Mexican poll to be the most disliked, distrusted, and discredited politician in Central America. Both of Honduras' major parties--including Zelaya's own--as well as the Catholic Church, the Congress, all the major media outlets and over two-thirds of the people want Zelaya out of office. Sure, this impressive majority was willing to see Zelaya finish his term in office and leave next January, but, when he seemed to be lusting after some sort of legitimate way to become Strongman For Life, both the country's Congress and Supreme Court said, "You have been here too long, get thee hence."

The Army carried out the direction of the Supreme Court and removed Zelaya. While there have been a few quite minor protests against this action, the real opposition resides external to Honduras.

Sr Zelaya has his supporters. They are headed by Hugo Chavez, a man whose love of democracy is questionable but whose distaste for the United States is monumental. Other supporters include Daniel Ortega, who once upon a time headed a group which shot its way into power but was finally forced to back down, regroup, and ultimately seek office via election. Ortega's one time companion in revolutionary arms, Miguel d'Escoto Brockman, who abandoned the priesthood to become Nicaragua's foreign minister and current president of the UN General Assembly, has served as chief cheerleader for the ousted fellow leftist from Honduras.

The lesser cheerleaders--all of whom are on the far left shores of politics and most of whom seek to emulate Hugo Chavez by gaining constitutional changes which will allow presidencies-for-life include Ewo Morales and Rafael Correa. Neither of these have shown any reluctance in supporting Sr Zelaya irrespective of his genuine popularity among the homeboys of Honduras.

Zelaya has made a close and attentive study of the ways in which the staunch upholders of Left Socialism under its new name, "Bolivarianism," sought and retained power by exploiting not only the legitimate hostility engendered among the lower orders by the exploitative actions of a distant, haughty elite but also by manufacturing fear and loathing of the United States. Doing the latter requires no great effort considering the alternating fits of total indifference and daring interventionism of varying sorts which typify whatever passes for US policy toward Central and South America.

In recent days both Chavez and Ortega have threatened military intervention on behalf of Sr Zeylaya. The deposed wannabe dictator has vowed to return to his country in triumph. In a response which is not surprising, the military and acting president of Honduras, Roberto Michelletti, have pronounced the republic to be in peril and have summoned the reserves back to the colors.

In large measure due to the urgings of Miguel d'Escoto and the out-to-lunch approach of the Obama administration, the UN has inserted itself in the dispute. The decisions of the congress and supreme court of Honduras as carried out by the military are strictly an internal affair of Honduras. There is absolutely no justification under the UN Charter for that entity to involve itself in the matter.

Admittedly the UN has consistently expanded its view of its own importance and scope of its missions far beyond those seen by the drafters of the UN Charter over sixty years ago. Some of the "mission creep" seen by the UN in recent years can be marginally justified by asserting that internal disorder resulting in refugee generation at a level which threatens the stability of neighboring countries constitutes an actual or potential "breach of the peace."

By that interpretation the UN General Assembly and Security Council have the precedent on their side should they be so bold (or ill-advised) as to further involve the organisation in the ongoing affrays in Somalia or Sudan. But, even this broad understanding of UN Charter derived authority cannot be used to excuse any meddling in the current situation in Honduras. Other than the normal "migrant" population drifting north, there are no "refugee" hordes streaming across international borders.

The Organisation of American States (OAS) has some fig leaf of respectability in its efforts to defuse any crisis which may now attend the accomplished feat of Zelaya's removal. In any such efforts the OAS would only undercut any legitimacy it may possess should it either heed or give a platform for voices such as those of the Ortega regime or that of Hugo Chavez, which have a, shall we say, badly checkered past in the transparent practice of pluralistic democracy department.

The Obama administration would be wise if it were to quit hyperventilating over the removal of Zelaya and accommodate the new reality in Honduras. We do nothing constructive by damning the new government, halting our normal course of business with the regime and its military. All we do is surrender the field to the biggest mouths of the region. That is not in our interests. Nor is it in the interests of the people, stability, and future of Honduras.

Instead the Obama administration had best focus on the proliferation of destabilizing violence related to drug trafficking which is scourging not only Mexico but other countries in Central America. The Mexican situation has deteriorated from last year as the body count shows. This has occurred in spite of the strong effort to counter the violence made by the Calderon administration;

Crime--including kidnappings, murders and lesser forms of assault--dominate the upcoming election. The Green Party has even taken the quite unthinkable step of calling for the reimposition of the death penalty for kidnapping and murder. That in and of itself demonstrates the effect the narcotrafficking based crime tidal wave has had on the Mexican population.

Mexico is not alone. The press of Guatemala is filled with reports detailing assassinations, kidnappings, run-of-the-mill robberies which sound as if they should be datelined "Juarez" or perhaps "Chicago--1930." By some accounts the body count per day runs ahead of that seen in Mexico. Overall, a person is safer in Iraq or even Afghanistan than he is in Guatemala or portions of Mexico.

The pattern is repeating itself in Costa Rica and--during Zeylaya's watch--Honduras. As has been seen over the past two decades and more, the cycle of drug trafficking, violence, and political corruption by the those involved in these criminal activities can threaten the stability of a state. Just review the history of Columbia.

If outsiders seek to exploit to their political advantage the rents in the social and political fabric made by the violence and money of drug trafficking, the resultant instability can be far more difficult, perhaps impossible, to combat. For this reason alone the Obama administration should deal with reality as it is in Honduras--and elsewhere--not play meaningless and potentially counterproductive rhetorical games over the need for democracy to be observed regardless of the outcome.

Climb down from progressive fantasyland, Mr President, your country and the region to our south needs realism. Get a grip on it.

Hugo Chavez Falls In Line

Apparently taking his cue from the mullahs and re-elected president of Iran as well as the Dear Leader of North Korea, Hugo Chavez, the wannabe Castro of the 21st Century, has entered the Bluster-For-All-You're-Worth Festival of International Bad Actors. Reportedly the semi-dictator of Venezuela has ordered his military to stand by for a possible intervention in Honduras.

The Mullahs Best Friend In LatAm has announced he will do whatever he can to "abort" the military coup which displaced Honduran president and Chavez' buddy, Manuel Zeylaya, early today. Chavez also warned the Honduran military that any attempt to harm or kidnap his ambassador in that country will be met by force.

Chavez must feel he is riding a high of (probably manufactured) public support given the demonstration by his supporters against the only ant-government TV station still on the air in the oil powered new socialist paradise of South America. It might be mentioned that the latest piece of Chavez posturing comes on the heels of the Obama administration's decision to put our mission in Caracas back on the ambassadorial level and only weeks after President Obama poured love and smiles on the far-left leaning and profoundly anti-American Chavez.

Can we say, "Spanner in the works?"

The rhetorical tirade launched as is usual on nationwide television by Chavez calls into question the value of Mr Obama's search for "engagement" in lieu of the previous administration's confrontational approach to the chest-thumping former paratrooper turned president morphed into dictator. In this context in might be mentioned that Chavez hinted darkly that the US was somehow behind the military coup.

Hugo's suspicions run counter to the reality that the US has worked to stave off the coup over the past several days. While the Honduran president is no friend of the US, there is no longing in Washington for regime change. Even if such is the desire of the Honduran political elite.

The deposed president is the primary proximate cause of his own involuntary plane ride to Costa Rica. In an attempt to emulate the success of his supporter and role model, Hugo Chavez, Sr. Zelaya sought to ram through a referendum which would have changed the Honduran constitution approved some twenty years ago so as to allow him to run for re-election when his term ends next January. The referendum was declared illegal by the Honduran congress and supreme court.

The position taken by the Honduran congress and supreme court represent the political elite which has never had much, if any, use for Zelaya. His support comes from the non-elte in the country. There is no doubt that the lot of the average Honduran is not good. Crime, particularly homicide as well as drug traffic, particularly cocaine, run rampant in the country, which was recently ranked by the World Bank well below the median of 209 countries rated in security.

The reduction of remittances from Honduran illegal workers in the US has had a dramatic, even devastating, impact on the nation's economy. And, the average Honduran, elite or not, is very well aware of the realities in which they live.

So also is the ambitious Sr Zeyala who, like the majority of wannabe dictators of the left, wants to be a transformational figure--or at least the Big Enchilada. Riding the wave of discontent rising from the lower, alienated, and hopeless portions of the population is the time-honored way to gain power for life. This is what lies behind the proposal for the referendum.

It is both unfortunate and predictable that the Honduran army which, like the majority of armies through the sweep of LatAm history is the protector of both the privileged and the status quo, intervened as it did. Pressure from the Organization of American States and the US might reverse the coup. (Note: the US is far and away Honduras' largest trading partner.) But, the Chavez saber rattling will not.

If the Great Man of the Bolivarian Revolution has any grip on reality he is well aware of this. After all, how is he going to project force into Honduras? What will his Russian supplied naval vessels do if the US Navy interposes itself? Come in shooting? Or, will he use the nation's airborne forces? And, if the US says, "No," then what?

OK, Hugo, the Geek agrees you are trying to get up there with Iran and North Korea. But, you have a long, long way to go. Iran is a genuine and growing threat to regional and, potentially, world peace. North Korea is a well established player of global extortion with a degree of resolve behind its apparent lunacy which is both well-honed and developed.

Venezuela, however, under the inspired revolutionary leadership of Hugo Chavez, is not even into the minor leagues of global troublemaker. That may change given the regime's ties with Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as its willingness and ability to foster and protect the international traffic in illegal drugs.

But, for the moment, the Chavez regime would be best off building its capacity for future bad acting and keeping a lid on premature bluster. There is nothing more damaging to a regional problem child than having its poor manners greeted by derisive laughter and not the sound of knees knocking.

History Is Bunk!

So said one-time industrial icon Henry Ford. Most Americans at the time and today agree with this succinct sentiment. At least implicitly.

The problem comes in that history is very, very real to people in other countries. President Obama found this out again when assorted and sundry LatAm leaders berated him regarding the historical wrongs committed against their countries and people by the United States. Hugo Chavez, of course, upstaged all the others when he presented a Spanish language copy of Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent by the very able Uruguayan historian Eduardo Galeano.

President Obama responded to the ever-so-predictable historical diatribe of Daniel Ortega by remarking that it was nice that the Nicaraguan jefe refrained from blaming him (Obama) for purported wrongs committed by the US when he (Obama) was still wearing three cornered pants. Mr Obama had no comeback quip for the "present" from Chavez who had earlier bluntly stated that the new American president was an "ignoramus" regarding Latin American history. Apparently Obama didn't notice that the bulk of Galeano's monograph dealt with events that occurred before the US came into existence.

Perhaps that oversight came from the fact that for President Obama as for most Americans it matters not if something happened five, or fifty or five hundred years ago. It's all history. It's all the long-dead and thus completely irrelevant past.

This self-defeating rejection of the importance of the past is to be expected in a country where the teaching of history is relegated to a very low priority. All too often high school history is an added duty assigned to one coach or another. In the university, history is typically the captive of the agenda driven mavins of the politically correct who subscribe with few exceptions to the blame-America-first or all-bad-things-come-from-dead-white-guys schools of interpretation.

When such asininity rides supreme it is scarcely remarkable that We the People and the policy makers who allegedly represent us either ignore or discount the trajectories of history which produce contemporary events. The paradox in this understanding arises from the long standing American belief that history is something which happened to other people in other countries but not to us.

This distinctive American view of history as some sort of external force which operates on other societies, other polities but not our own brings with it a very dangerous corollary. We are prompted by this piece of absurd faith to conclude that when the US puts its collective will to the task, its policies will succeed regardless of how history has affected the target society (or, victim country, if you are of the Left.)

With sincerity oozing from every pore, we Americans take the position that given sufficient material inducements the recipient of our generosity will alter its policies or behaviors to meet our requirements. With similar protestations of excellent intentions we hector other countries to emulate us, to be like us, to embrace something called "progress" and leave their past in the dusty bin which is the proper natural habitat of that most impractical and non-utilitarian of creatures--the historian.

When the blandishments of "progress" or material inducements fail to persuade, we tend to chalk the rejection of our efforts to the sheer obstinacy of foreign leaders or the sinister effects of some hostile ideology. We fail to admit that there is even the slightest possibility that history has a very real presence, and an equally genuine power in the minds of the society whose leaders have spurned our good intentions and accompanying rewards.

As we decry the presence and power of history as an intellectual and cultural determinant in other societies, so also do we deny its existence within our own. Or, to err on the side of accuracy, we cherry pick our understandings of history so as to maximise the potency of the most desirable aspects of our past while kicking aside all the deficiencies and difficulties which have been met and overcome during our two plus centuries of corporate existence.

For example, we hawk "democracy" to the world as an instant, semi-magical anodyne for all human ills. By so doing we seem to believe that "democracy" is some sort of political commodity which can be air dropped on a target nation and instantly take effect.

We overlook just how long and hard we Americans have worked to bring democracy and all of the necessary accessories to their present, imperfect state of development. We fail to see and appreciate that democracy grows best when it grows slowly, adapting to the unique requirements of the local soil and climate.

Nearly a century ago President Woodrow Wilson played the role of school teacher to the Mexicans. With a determination to, as he put it, "teach the Mexicans to elect good men," this apostle of peace landed the Marines at Vera Cruz. The resulting several months of American military government did not--could not--teach the Mexicans to elect good men. It did teach a lesson which echoes down to right now: The gringos are interventionist imperialists who are behind everything bad which happens to poor Mexico, the country "so far from God; so close to the United States."

The power of the historical myth built over generations by the Mexican society both elite and hoi polloi along with the longer standing and even more distorted myth of American imperialism in the Mexican War soldiers on today to inhibit effective collaboration for mutual benefit between these two countries fated to be tied by geography as they are separated by disjunctive understandings of common history.

It may be true that the US as portrayed by Cleveland's SecState Richard Olney in a Note to Her Majesty's Government over a century ago "is practically sovereign over this hemisphere." It is certainly true that upon occasion the US has acted as hegemon. From Theodore Roosevelt to H.W. Bush we have intervened at will in Central and South America as well as the Caribbean.

These interventions, whether as overt as landing the Marines or as semi-covert as the support for the "Contras," have been high and spiky mountains dotting a vast and arid plain. Most of the history of US relations with LatAm is one of total American indifference and non-involvement. With the exception of a very few US corporations such as ITT and Anaconda Copper, the US has been so low on the list of countries opening the veins of Latin America as to almost fly below Galeano's radar screen.

Of course, it is the high and spiky hills which attract the eye of historians--and the creators of historical myth. Thus the interventions of all sorts occupy the political landscape to the exclusion of the real history. The history of American disengagement with the Lands to the South.

This reality is precisely why the Obama administration should move rapidly--even without sufficient political cover--to reverse the half-century of the US imposed policy of Cuban isolation. Not only has it failed (which ought to be sufficient reason for its ending) but it feeds the myth of Yankee Imperialism which is the staff of life for Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and their ilk.

There is a larger (and no doubt quite unintended) lesson from the History Teachers of The Summit of the Americas. History is alive and well as a day-to-day presence throughout the world. No matter how much the chattering folk of American academe and other fans of multi-culturalism may wish it otherwise, history and the mythic distortions based on history are part of the air breathed every day in every part of the world outside our borders.

Get a grip on this: It is impossible to formulate and execute effective policy without a well-founded understanding of the actual history as well as the operative historically derived myths at work in other countries.

One cannot, for example, address the conundrums presented by Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, the Mideast without a full appreciation of history and its myths in these regions. The (by Americans) dead hand of history rests very, very heavily upon the shoulder of today in each and every one of these nations.

One cannot, for example, address the threats presented by Islamism and its armed expression, jihadism, without a full and accurate appraisal of the Muslim experience over the past thousand years. Islamism and the conflicts it spawns both internecine and external cannot be countered by ripping it from the historical context which has produced it.

At the same time American policy to be effective must take into account the unique nature of American history and the defining mythology which it has produced. While there may well be no such critter as "American exceptionalism," there is American uniqueness. The uniqueness of our history, which means simply that no American institution can be uprooted and transplanted intact to foreign soil.

The brilliance of George Kennan's Containment Policy resided in its highly insightful understanding not only of Russian history but also that of the United States. It was this accurate foundation which allowed--no, insured--the success of Containment despite its perversion by the overly muscular military focus provided by Kennan's successors. Kennan knew something which has eluded the majority of Americans back then or today--history matters. It matters more than atomic bombs, troops in the field or any other facet of military calculus. It is the ultimate determinate of behavior as it is perceptions.

What is to be done?

Well, we might start by remembering a line from a World War II popular ditty. "We did it before. We can do it again."

To President Obama and the rest of his administration the Geek can only add from the words of the Wandering Sage and Healer, Jesus. "You who have two good ears better listen."