Isn't part of the reality of the military, that you may
be trained/educated in one way, but when they return to their homeland, they
have to conform to what their superiors want. Therefore, they may be trained
in US but conform to South American standards
maree
I hope you plan get both sides of the story before you make
a judgement.
First, the SOA does not espouse or advocate torture, execution
and assassination. It's mentioned in the text because it's a reality in
the region. But it says this technique does not achieve any long-term
goal, and is detrimental to the military and to the regime in
charge.
Second, Latin America has historically been a very violent
region as far as government and revolutions are concerned. That
"tradition" cannot be taken from individuals in the few months they're at Ft
Benning. If you grow up violent, there's a good chance you'll stay that
way. SOA tries to forge/improve multilateral ties. Sometimes
individuals go there, learn the tactics, and apply them incorrectly when they
return. Can you blame an individual's actions on a school they went to
for a few months (about 10, but I don't recall for sure). That's like
saying your opinions today are completely the result of your 10th grade
teacher. That's like blaming Harvard for Kadaffi. (I think it was
Harvard--it was some Ivy League school. Look it up if you're
interested.)
Perhaps they should do a better job screening the
candidates? That's possible, but very difficult because of international
relations are concerned. The country's military decides which officers
to send--and they usually send whoever graduated first from their
academy. They have a very strict tanda system in most LA
countries. First, the Army would need the money to do those background
checks. Second, we'd have a very difficult time forcing our system down
their throats. I heard a story at the Special Ops School one time--a
country nominated the first in its class to come to the SOS at Hurlburt Fld,
but he didn't speak English well enough to complete the class, so we said he
couldn't come. In America, that honor (and it's an honor and a career
boon for many of these officers) would probably have gone to the second in the
class. But that would have embarassed the first graduate, so no one
went. What a waste of an opportunity, right? That how we view it,
anyway. To them, the honor of their first graduate is more important
than the opportunity. So in many cases our choice is between contact or
no contact--not between which contact we'll make.
The SOA teaches nations how to professionalize their
armies. They lead by example, and in doing so try to decrease the number
of human rights violations made by these armies. Things like a
professional NCO corps, which is VERY important to a professional army and
many of these countries lack. This also helps decrease the social
stratification within the military, which leads to more fair punishments and
few human rights violations. Things like proper military justice rather
than summary executions.
Third, they bring together members of all nation in Latin
America. They learn together, they live together. Some of the
officers have had little or no contact with the other nations, so this deepens
their understanding of their neighbors. The SOA tries to foster teamwork
among different nations' militaries. Sometimes officers from rival
countries will not talk to each other; sometimes they overcome their prejudice
and become friends. Either way, the attempt to bring nations together
and teach them how to professionalize--together--only lends stability to the
region.
Perhaps most importantly, the SOA teaches that it's entirely
natural for the military to be subjugated to and take orders from a civilian
government. That's not the way many militaries view their role in
society, although it's becoming that way partly through the efforts of
programs like the SOA at Ft Benning, the USAFSOS at Hurlburt, and the
Inter-American Air Force Academy in San Antonio. That works wonders in
increasing stability, which will improve the economy through foreign
investment and make life better for the entire country. A more stable,
prosperous country leads to less conflict, which in turn may mean fewer human
rights violations.
So please, don't automatically assume that because the word
assassination is in a manual, that's what they preach and everything the
school does is bad. That manual doesn't advise assassination--I talked
to the man who wrote it. The military isn't about war-mongers trying to
kill, maim, and torture. It's a tool of foreign policy--the whole
Clausewitzian thing. The SOA has a very difficult mission to accomplish,
but it's also a very important one. If we were to shut it down, we'd
lose a very lucrative forum for instructing militaries that are trying to
become more stable, professional, respected members of their societies.
And that's certainly in the interest of human rights.
Jeff
___________________________________________________________
To Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make A Buck Or Two @ TheMail.com - Free Internet Email
Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref6357
referrer name =ohn_t Check it out! It works!
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
