The Truman Doctrine

The Truman Doctrine, which the CIA helped wage, promoted the US standing up and opposing totalitarian regimes all over the world that suppressed democracy, freedom, etc. That is what led to the Cold War. We opposed the Communist totalitarian USSR and its satellites. In that battle, the CIA supported and worked with hard-right fascist dictator ships with secret police and death squads in Central America, Iran, South America, and Africa. Those were totalitarian Fascist governments that we worked with and supported, but doesn't that go against the Truman Doctrine? Or is it Communism that's the key, that the Fascist parts of our own CIA and "National Security State" exist and it is what it is, and Totalitarian Communism was the enemy. I've heard a quote from an ex-CIA agent during that period that Soviet-ism was more insidious than a future of Fascism. That speaks volumes when we see all the hard-right fascist dictatorships that were our puppets during the Cold War.

 

The Truman doctrine:
Truman argued that the United States could no longer stand by and allow the forcible expansion of Soviet totalitarianism into free, independent nations, because American national security now depended upon more than just the physical security of American territory.
Rather, in a sharp break with its traditional avoidance of extensive foreign commitments beyond the Western Hemisphere during peacetime, the Truman Doctrine committed the United States to actively offering assistance to preserve the political integrity of democratic nations when such an offer was deemed to be in the best interest of the United States.

 

So it was OK for the US to support, train, and prop up fascist dictatorships in smaller countries, but to oppose Communist dictatorships. I'm no USSR fan, but that seems hypocritical.

 

Which goes to the point that the "National Security State" and "Intelligence State" of America is Fascism at it's heart.

 

In essence this is the argument attributed to FDR as well. Supposedly Secretary of State, Sumner Welles, once said "Somoza's a bastard!" And Roosevelt replied, "Yes, but he's our bastard." Did FDR ever day this? if so when?

Nor is it a million miles in sentiment from Churchill's comment in June 1941 about fighting alongside Stalin. If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

 

That's a remarkably poor understanding of what the Truman Doctrine was...and what the Cold War and its causes were for that matter.

 

Then let's hear your expertise. And no it isn't a poor understanding.

 

I'm not going to waste too much of my time on this.

1. The Cold War preceded the Truman Doctrine. The Cold War in fact is what drove Truman to enunciate the doctrine and not the other way around as you seem to think.
2. The expression "Cold War" was first used by George Orwell on 19 October 1945 to describe the postwar tensions in Europe.
3. The "Truman Doctrine" was delivered to a Joint Session on 12 March 1947. It was expressly a response to the Turkish Crisis, beginning August 1946, and the Greek Civil War, both of which were begun by the Soviet Union.
4. The CIA was created 26 July 1947 by the National security Act of 1947. It was not created to wage the Cold War or pursue the Truman Doctrine, but rather, expressly, to prevent another Pearl Harbor (a mission it has notably failed at).
5. The first "totalitarian regime" the CIA succeeded in supporting was the Christian Democrats in the 1st Italian Republican Government elected 18 April 1948. It's first success at regime change was to evict Mosaddegh in Iran, who had assumed dictatorial powers, all of which had zero to do with the Soviet Union and everything to do with oil.
6. The later more sordid history of regime change and support by the US was mirrored by the Soviets and the rest of the "First World" nations, there are very few who can profess being holier than thou.
7. Meanwhile, the modern U.S. national security state has nothing to do with the Truman Doctrine or Cold War and everything to do with events that culminated on 11 September 2001.

Cheers!

 

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

How existential.

 

The Truman Doctrine wasn't about helping others, it was about helping the US, about improving American chances in a confrontation with the USSR - this is why "when [it] was deemed to be in the best interest of the United States" was there.
And the US actions weren't motivated by morality but by cold political calculations, so they couldn't be hypocritical.

I think it should be remembered that the USSR enslaved other nations permanently, and especially during the Stalinist period attempted to eradicate their cultures and religions - that was basically a cultural genocide.

The US intervened a few times, military and politically (the only real military intervention happened during the Dominican Civil War if I'm not mistaken) but generally left other countries alone. Whatever was going on in those countries was mostly their own doings, many were inherently unstable then, and they are unstable even today.
That a leftist tinpot dictator could have created a paradise in any of those countries is just wishful thinking.
The US didn't intervene in Mexico, Venezuela, Peru - to name a few but they are still extremely poor despite their enormous reserves of minerals. And they were/are ruled by socialist governments.

 

Maybe I wrote wrong, but I understand the Cold War started before the National Security Act of 1947, the creation of the CIA, which was intended to be our eyes and ears, and the Truman Doctrine. The point I was making is in the long and sordid history of this period the US and CIA security apparatus had no problem supporting hard right fascist dictators with secret police and and secret squads, that was somehow morally higher than what the USSR was doing. US business interests were also the key to what we supported.

 

That we supported the hard right fascist police states in smaller countries to somehow keep out the "godless" Communists, if that's the argument, its thin.

 

Too Black and White. Certainly US concerns were of considerable import but they weren't the whole story. How much hypocracy was present depends on how deep one is looking at things and how long term. In some cases there was clearly an element of it, how much is an open question.

Except of course that they didn't. Not because they didn't plan on it but because they proved incapable of it.

I won't argue with that one.

I think you will find that there were a number of other US military interventions of course it was common practice for 1st world powers to intervene in the 19th and early 20th century. The US did continue this to some extent after WWII. Vietnam would be another for example. If you look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1945.E2.80.931949
There's an extensive list but not all the events currently under discussion.

Again I won't argue with that one.

Well the US didn't intervene militarily in Mexico or Venezuela after WWII. They did send troops to Peru at one point on an anti drug mission (so this may or may not be considered relevant). CIA activities however in support or opposition to various parties are another matter though.

 

Sorry, but the CIA was not and is not a "security apparatus". It is an intelligence organization with clandestine capabilities, which is part of the national security infrastructure. The DOD, FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, TSA, CIS, CPB, ICE, and CG are arguably "security apparatus".

Meanwhile, the "long and sordid history" was essentially from 1953 to around 1990. So about 37 years, which is a blink of the eye historically speaking.

You also ignore the longer and just as sordid history of Soviet and Soviet client state "security apparatus" supporting hard left fascist dictators with secret police, secret squads, and conventional invasions. In 1986, two Dutch scholars identified and classified 44 Soviet intrabloc, interbloc, and extrabloc interventions. The U.S.?

 

It was not intended as a security apparatus, but sure behaved like a security racketeer for American business interests. General Smedley Butler spoke the same way of his time with the Marines before Congress when he was part of the Business plot for a Fascist overthrow of FDR.

 

Of course the Soviet Union was horrible and had a bad track record, but the CIA was part of many executive actions and illegal actions in other countries. Read John Stockwell, an ex-CIA Whistle-blower.