Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995

donate.jpg (7556 bytes)
Make a secure online contribution
Go to to post comments

Get email updates:

RSS Feed
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to Google

contactContact Us

Order Now


Age of Obama
Barack Obama's presidency

Bush End Game
George W. Bush's presidency since 2007

Bush - Second Term
George W. Bush's presidency from 2005-06

Bush - First Term
George W. Bush's presidency, 2000-04

Who Is Bob Gates?
The secret world of Defense Secretary Gates

2004 Campaign
Bush Bests Kerry

Behind Colin Powell's Legend
Gauging Powell's reputation.

The 2000 Campaign
Recounting the controversial campaign.

Media Crisis
Is the national media a danger to democracy?

The Clinton Scandals
Behind President Clinton's impeachment.

Nazi Echo
Pinochet & Other Characters.

The Dark Side of Rev. Moon
Rev. Sun Myung Moon and American politics.

Contra Crack
Contra drug stories uncovered

Lost History
America's tainted historical record

The October Surprise "X-Files"
The 1980 election scandal exposed.

From free trade to the Kosovo crisis.

Other Investigative Stories



Giving Diplomacy a Chance

By Haviland Smith
June 29, 2009

Editor’s Note: After eight years of George W. Bush’s macho foreign policy – that left two open-ended wars – President Barack Obama has called for less belligerence and more diplomacy.

For that, Obama has been denounced by many Republicans and many Washington pundits for softness, for “apologizing,” for naively thinking that diplomacy might work – a troubling response – as former CIA Station Chief Haviland Smith notes in this guest essay:

Since the Second World War, the Republicans have said consistently that the Democrats’ main foreign policy problem is that they are either unable or unwilling to successfully and purposefully project American power abroad.

In this context, there are three means by which we can project power abroad: We can do it with military operations; we can do it with covert, regime change/intelligence operations; and we can do it with diplomatic operations.

Over those sixty-odd years, American administrations are said to have been involved in 32 cases of either military or covert intelligence projections of power in which we have attempted to overthrow sitting governments.

They range from Korea through Iran and Cuba to Bosnia and Afghanistan. Democrat administrations have been involved in 10 of those operations where Republicans have supported 22.

Some, like Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq have been supported by both Republican and Democrat administrations.

Thus, it would appear that, successful or not, Republicans are more than twice as likely to project power through military or intelligence operations than are the Democrats.

Just what have all those operations really done for America?

Let’s examine alleged U.S. Intelligence or regime change operations first. Consider Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Costa Rica (1955), Syria (1957), Indonesia (1958), Dominican Republic (1960), Peru (1960), Equador (1960), Congo (1960), Cuba (1961), Brazil (1964), Chile (1972), Angola (1975) and Nicaragua (1981).  

Our “success” in installing Shah Reza Pahlavi in Iran haunts us to this day. The Cuba operation helped solidify Castro in power. The remaining Latin America operations left us with a “big brother,” negative legacy that still infuriates our Latin neighbors. Ditto those in Africa and Islam.

Our military projections of power can be examined in Korea (1950-53), Viet Nam (1961-73), Lebanon (1982-84), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), Iraq (Gulf) (1991), Somalia (1993), Bosnia (1994-95), Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001-date) and Iraq (2003-date).

With the possible exception of Bosnia and Kosovo where we have dampened ethnic hatred at least for the moment (a positive outcome) and maybe Panama -- all of which were of relatively minor international importance -- it is really hard to see the benefits of our other, larger scale, military adventures.

Korea remains divided and leaves a nuclear North Korea. Viet Nam was a loss. Afghanistan and Iraq do not look likely to be wins.

So, in relation to the amount of U.S. national treasure poured into these military and intelligence adventures, the return seems pretty meager.

That was obvious from the start in Korea and Viet Nam where we were motivated by a largely imagined communist threat. Yet, we went ahead, repeating the same behaviors for over 60 years, always finding a questionable, illusory threat, now terrorism, to justify our actions.

And we still haven’t stopped. Or have we?

Surprisingly, President Obama has chosen to prolong the Iraq and Afghanistan operations, yet it would seem from his recent statements that a really basic change is underway in our foreign policy.

He says we are not at war with Islam. He speaks of “respect” for Islam and of talking with Iran and perhaps even with the Taliban.

It seems likely this new President is going to employ the most underused tool of power projection in our national arsenal, one that has not seen the light of day for almost eight years: diplomatic power.  

And what happens? President Obama is attacked immediately by a cross-section of the press and the entire political spectrum as soft on terror, soft on Iran, soft on Islam, and soft on our enemies whoever they may be.

Comfortable with the clearly unsuccessful past, these critics see anything other than confrontation with our adversaries as appeasement at best and capitulation at worst.

Today’s Republicans have come full circle. They have had their fling at projecting power through military and intelligence operations at the expense of coalition building and diplomacy. By any reasonable standard, they have come up empty.  

There is really nothing left for them to do but paint today’s Democrats as capitulators and appeasers who are soft on everything and unwilling or unable to appropriately project American power abroad!

If we read history, which most politicians and many of our most prolific media commentators apparently do not, then it is time to put our old military and intelligence projections of power aside, if only because they have not served our interests in the post-WWII world.

We have not employed diplomatic power as a primary weapon for years. We really need to give it a chance. It is our best if not only option in today’s new, confusing and increasingly complicated world.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA Station Chief who served in Eastern and Western Europe, the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff.

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.

homeBack to Home Page is a product of The Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc., a non-profit organization that relies on donations from its readers to produce these stories and keep alive this Web publication.

To contribute, click here. To contact CIJ, click here.