What the Heck Are US Marines Doing in Costa Rica? Obama's Tilt to the Right on Latin America

[unhappycamper]

What the Heck Are US Marines Doing in Costa Rica? Obama's Tilt to the Right on Latin America
Friday 06 August 2010
by: Nikolas Kozloff, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

The USS Makin Island, an amphibious assault aircraft carrier, is an intimidating ship. Built by Northrup Grumman, Makin Island is 45,000 tons of cold steel and has living quarters for almost 3,200 sailors and Marines. Weighing in at a whopping 42,800 tons, the ship is 844 feet long and 106 feet wide. The vessel's 70,000 horsepower hybrid propulsion system enables Makin Island to reach speeds in excess of 20 knots.

A multi-purpose ship, Makin Island is designed to transport and land Marines via helicopter, landing craft or amphibious assault vehicle. In an impressive show of force, the Navy recently deployed Makin Island to South American waters. There, the ship made visits to several ports of call including the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro, the Chilean town of Valparaiso and the Peruvian capitol of Lima. More significantly, perhaps, the aircraft carrier could soon be deployed to the Central American country of Costa Rica.

If you just did a double take, that is understandable. For years, this small nation has prided itself on its adherence to pacifistic principles. In a region plagued by violence, Costa Rica historically managed to stay above the fray and the nation has not had an Army since 1949. The country, with a small population of just four million, is seen as safer than its Central American neighbors and an attractive destination for tourists and US retirees.

So, why is the Costa Rican government now inviting the US Navy to patrol its local waters? Officially, the Americans will be deployed to help stem the flow or drugs northward. The ships would arrive for at least six months to assist counternarcotics operations by Costa Rican officials. The government argues that the help is well needed. For some time, smugglers have used Costa Rica as a transshipment point for drugs coming from Colombia and Panama. Without any armed forces and with long coastlines and poorly guarded borders, Costa Rica is vulnerable to the machinations of technologically advanced drug cartels.

Indeed, Costa Rican authorities report that powerful Mexican cartels are infiltrating their country. Recently, local police seized more than a ton of cocaine at a house outside the capital and detained two Mexicans with alleged ties to the Juarez cartel. Meanwhile, the Costa Rican prison system has been put under enormous strain as the inmate population has soared. With a spike in drug-related crime, the prisons have spilled over and become more violent.

[Joanne98]

1. An excuse. The rich need an excuse to protect their profits...

Moves to bring the U.S. Navy to Costa Rica have sparked widespread suspicions that Washington is looking for a justification to remilitarize the Central American region. It's undeniable that a recent increase in violence has sparked panic. However, some have argued that the real issue has to do with the causes of violence. While the right argues that the spike has to do with drug cartels, the left believes that the violence has more to do with poverty and rising inequality. In Costa Rica, the gap between rich and poor has been widening dramatically in recent years. Consider that in the 1990s, the wealthiest 10% of Costa Rica's population made 15 times what the poorest tenth earned. However, in the 2000s that figure was nearly 25 times.

[Ken Burch]

3. The lyrics Phil Ochs wrote forty-five years ago still ring true:

"We own half the world, O Say Can You See
And the name for our profits is "democracy".
So like it or not, you will have to be "free"...
'Cause We're the Cops of the World, Boys
We're the Cops of the World."

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. And the irony of all this,

is that an American enclave in Latin America would help support a middle class in the country. It has already happened in Panama. As long as Americans were allowed to hire Panamanians and pay them wages comparable, if not better than Panamanian wages, the poor benefited. And the US also provided jobs for many Panamanians who married servicemen.

The fight in Panama would be over land. As the population grew, they wanted choice land back.

[Ken Burch]

9. That would mean accepting that we should switch from supply-side to demand-side economics

Even OUR party's leaders can't tolerate that...even in one country.

[EFerrari]

16. Not suspicions, they are remilitarizing. New bases in Honduras,

Colombia, expansion in Panama and Costa Rica. Obama has already exceeded Bush in this respect. And the proportion of aid that goes over there as military aid just keeps growing.

[Ken Burch]

2. It's because our party's "leaders" are still terrified of not looking "tough"

And they still think this means that they have to be just as inflexible in defending "market values" in Central America and the rest of the developing world as the Republicans are.

This is what we get from letting arrogant, yet fear-driven people lead our party.

[Citizen Worker]

4. I think it has more to do with "successful defiance" on the part of several South American

nations to evict the IMF and the World Bank and to go "their own way" when it comes to extractive resources and who will benefit from those resources. Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Peru and Ecuador must be brought back into line. We are going to invade and occupy one or more South American nations or we're going to serve as backup to military coups. It's coming.

[JohnyCanuck]

5. +1 n/t

[TheWraith]

7. That tin-foil hat looks very stylish. nt

[Ken Burch]

8. Do you have any actual rebuttal to the point?

You can't seriously just take our party leadership's word for it that they aren't fighting for the IMF.

[TheWraith]

10. You can't take our party leadership's word that they're not reptillian aliens.

Do you have any rebuttal to that?

To "rebut" paranoia only gives it credibility as a valid point of view.

[Ken Burch]

11. You can't honestly believe that our being in Costa Rica isn't driven

by subservience to corporate power. We've never had any OTHER reason for intervening in Central America.

What'm I saying...you probably thought the Contras WERE "freedom fighters"...

:eyes:

[TheWraith]

13. That's right, create strawman arguments.

And anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a corporatist pawn.

Thank you for proving you have no evidence or credible arguments.

[Ken Burch]

14. You don't have ANY arguments

You just trust the leaders blindly...so long as their in YOUR party.

But I'll give you a chance.

What possible NON-reactionary reason could there ever have been for the United States to ever have intervened in any Latin American country?

And, especially since this administration already assisted a right-wing coup in Honduras, why would you give anyone in it the benefit of the doubt on Latin American policy?

[TheWraith]

18. You're attempting to change the entire premise.

The original premise was "The US is going to invade Latin America."

Now your premise is "The US has intervened in Latin America in the past for reactionary reasons."

Because the original premise is both absurd and unsupportable.

[Ken Burch]

19. Why would it be?

Our past behavior in the region is a good predictor of what we're capable of.

We need to remember that to prevent the past from recurring.

It's never a good or innocuous sign when we increase our troop presence anywhere.

[EFerrari]

17. What? You don't follow news in Latin America at all?

[Odin2005]

15. Yup. Our elites are very paranoid about losing their empire.

[Bluebear]

12. Obama's Tilt to the Right on Latin America...on Education...on health care...on....