Careful whom you idolize

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Che Guevara, a pop hero 40 years after his death, was the Osama bin Laden of the 1960s

By ERIC MARGOLIS

Back in remote 1963, when I was attending Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service School in Washington, a classmate whose father was Ecuador's ambassador, told me the following incident.
Ecuador's then-president, Carlos Arosemena, showed up drunk at a dinner for American officials and yelled, "why don't all you damned gringos go home and stop exploiting our country!"
An hour later, Ecuador's army chief called the Pentagon and asked permission to overthrow the government. Washington gave the green light, the tanks rolled, and "El Presidente" was bundled off into exile.
Had I been a Latin American student in those distant days, I might well have become a revolutionary.
ANTI-AMERICAN
An Argentine student, Ernesto Guevara, nicknamed "Che," did. He determined to launch a crusade against the American Empire. But the dashing Che, who has become a worldwide icon and cult figure of youthful struggle against injustice, ended up the tool of another empire, and a truly evil one, the Soviet Union.
Che Guevara joined Fidel Castro's revolution against Cuba's U.S.-supported Batista regime. Guevara quickly became Fidel's right-hand man and hero of the revolution. Cuba went from dozy banana republic to Marxist police state.
But Guevara was no desk-bound revolutionary, and Cuba too small for two big egos. Che saw himself as natural leader and apostle of anti-western "liberation struggles" across the Third World. He went off, improbably, to Africa to launch world-wide revolution.
Commemorating the 40th anniversary last week of Che's death, Fidel Castro hailed him as the "messenger of militant internationalism." Old warhorse Castro added, "he still fights with us and for us."
Fidel is right. The image of the sexy, cigar-chomping Che, raffishly bearded, sporting jaunty black beret, is universal. Youngsters born 25 years after Che was killed sport his image on T-shirts and quote his fuzzy revolutionary maxims.
Today, the Third World has another version of militant revolutionary Che. Osama bin Laden. Like Che's vow to "liberate" Latin America, Osama launched a violent, one-man crusade to drive U.S. influence from the Muslim World.
Bin Laden commands the same degree of celebrity in the Muslim World that Che did in '60s Latin America.
But for all his panache and swashbuckling, Che failed miserably as a guerilla leader, first in eastern Congo, then, fatally, in Bolivia.
Che believed Bolivia's dirt poor peasants would revolt against the ruling, U.S.-backed oligarchy.
In reality, they turned their backs on Che and his band of Marxist insurgents.
HUNTED DOWN
Guevara was hunted down by a special U.S. unit, led by legendary, Cuban-born CIA agent, Felix Rodriguez. The wounded Che was captured and executed by Bolivian soldiers on Oct. 9, 1967. Interestingly, in 2005, Rodriguez called for "special action" against a new Marxist menace, Venezuela's anti-American leader, Hugo Chavez.
The glamour cult of the sainted Che has obscured the fact he was an ardent Communist. Revelations from KGB files show that "anti-imperialist" revolutions in Bolivia, Nicaragua and El Salvador, and left wing groups in Brazil, Argentina, Peru and Chile, were secretly funded and armed by the Soviets. Moscow used both Fidel's Cuba and Che to undermine U.S. influence in Latin America.
COMMUNISTS
Guevara and Castro were hardline Communists from day one, not socialist agrarian reformers, as they pretended. Communism, for those too young to remember, was history's most lethal political system that killed nearly 100 million people in the 20th Century, far dwarfing Hitler's crimes.
Che and Fidel had nothing to do with Soviet crimes in Europe, but they supped with the devil in Moscow to advance their cause of anti-Yankee revolution.
Marxist revolution failed. But three decades later, democratic parties of the left have been elected across Latin America, including Bolivia.
Their calls for populist socialism and reduction of America's influence over the region often sound rather like Che and Fidel's fiery orations of yore.
However, this time around, the CIA is busy chasing a new revolutionary menace, this time wearing a white turban instead of black beret, one Osama bin Laden.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Good post.. When I was in university years ago we bought Che Guevara tee shirts, and Che Guevara posters, thinking this guy was a hero. He was no kind of hero. I first read some of the stuff you've posted about fifteen years ago and was shocked(at least surprised:smile:) that Che was not what we thought him to be.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
"An hour later, Ecuador's army chief called the Pentagon and asked permission to overthrow the government. Washington gave the green light, the tanks rolled, and "El Presidente" was bundled off into exile."

It's revealing in the statement quoted above that the sanction of the U.S. was felt as "needed" by Ecuador's military. Why would an nation require the approval of the United States particularly when the issue under consideration is the overthrow of government? Perhaps it's becasue the seminal issues behind revolution in South America and Central America and various other locations around the planet are directly bound to American interests.....

We've watched as Americans jack-booted through Hollywood in the days of McCarthy and we've all of course watched as war after war has been supported and funded by America over the past hundred years.

Make no mistake about this!

While the excesses of a dictatorship "government" can be reviewed throughout history, if the preparedness of the United States to involve itself in other nations political dynamic and in fact on several ocaisions directly interfere financially and militarily to establish dictatorships friendly to American "interests", what's the great difference between this and the actions of the socialist or the communist regimes that have been doing the same thing?

Show me one nation outside of the United States that has benefitted to the same degree or even closely to the degree that the wealthy elite of the United States have benefitted by intrusive actions into other nations. If the policy of the United States is to set up puppet regimes like Marcos and Pinochet and Suharto, wouldn't it stand to reason that those nations would be out in front...way ahead of the game in terms of social development?

History and it's revisionists will always use a single example of history to make a point, but rarely do these same revisionists open the aperture to sufficient width to encompass the greater picture of simultaneous military and financial "operations" put into effect by the United States.

Had the world invaded the United States to free the African American, or some other nation had invaded when the United States was roiling in civil war, then there might be an argument from "understanding", however, the histories of the world are written by the neighborhood bully and the spin presented will always shine a favorable light on them.

One can only hope that a similar cadre of revisionists will be around to clarify the slaughter of millions that the United States has practiced in its self interest from Indonesia to Chile from Iraq to Haiti.

If you're invited to look at one little segment of history through some particular narrow window, chances are that you're going to "see" exactly what that person doing the invitation wants you to see and nothing else.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I find it odd that either of you would find fault in Che, hell even I like Che...

His message is what was important...Hey where have I heard that one before...Oh ya, from the pro Gore camp.

Che raged against the American Machine. Though his "behind the scenes" intentions were erronious, his message at that time was about "change".

You all seem so adiment about that perticular part of the Gore experience, why do you not have the same respect for Che?

His legacy has done more for Latin America then American politicians of the same time.