Iran-Contra-Drugs

From our younger days: remember when we were kids, and saw Ollie North
swearing oath on TV with his smart olive uniform, and all the jokes about
shredding documents and whatnot? During the mid-80s, the economy was rolling
(at least for the rich and most of our families), the Soviets were on the
decline, and life was pretty good (“it’s morning in America”), so I
think the whole Iran-Contra scandal seemed like a circus sideshow to most of
us – especially since we were in grade school at the time. However,
Regan’s approval rating did dip to a shocking 44% during the fiasco. It’s
something that the right would really like to sweep under the rug, or even
revise history so that key players like Reagan, North, Bush Sr., George Shultz,
Colin Powell, John Poindexter, and Caspar Weinberger were actually heroes as a
result. If you thought the Katrina fallout was bad, this scandal was so
abusive of power and disrespectful to the American public (and global
community) that if it happened today – even our spineless Congress would
dust off the guillotine.

I’ll *try* to be brief, but the scandal is complex and multi-faceted: we all
know that during the Cold War, the USA had the policy of supporting
anti-Communist forces wherever and whenever beneficial, even if those forces
happened to be unstable thugs like the Mujahadeen, Pinochet, and the Contras
in Nicaragua. Military and logistical support cost lots money (even in the
Third World), so funds needed to be raised – either legitimately through
Congress or covertly via CIA channels. During the ‘80s, much profit could be
made from arms and drug sales involving the right parties.

NICARAGUA

During the early Cold War, Nicaragua was a banana republic of the USA, ruled
by the dictator Somoza. The local Catholic clergy opposed his brutal rule, and
were often silenced by force. The people never supported this puppet leader
(as was the case with the Shah), and the grassroots Sandinistas emerged to
overthrow the Somoza regime. With US and Cuban military aid, the conflict
evolved into a costly civil war during the ‘60s and ‘70s, until the
Sandinistas eventually prevailed with much public rejoice. One problem, they
were socialist and Castro allies.

Once Regan assumed power, Nicaragua was labeled as a major security risk to
the USA and an example of supposed global Marxist domination. This seems hard
to believe, because the civil war against Somoza cost the nation billions,
rendered nearly a million people homeless, and crushed the fragile economy.
However, the Reaganites painted the nation as a launch pad for Soviet
aggression into America’s soft underbelly. Minus the Cuban Missile Crisis,
the dangers that Castro posed have been exaggerated for some time – but
Nicaragua was an even smaller threat. However, in ’81 the White House began
to secretly fund opposition groups and engage in illegal military activities
(as was the case with Cuba in the ‘50s and ‘60s, which of course prompted
Castro to seek enhanced Soviet protection).

The loyalist press and White House made the Contras out to be a cohesive
freedom-fighting organization dedicated to eradicating communist oppression,
but in reality they were non-unified, unprincipled guerrillas and Somoza
loyalists who often terrorized the civilian populace rather than accomplish
any concrete political goals (their largest arm was the “Nicaraguan
Democratic Force” or FDN, see attached Appendix for more details). Congress
eventually got wind of the unapproved operations in Nicaragua and passed the
Boland Amendment in ‘82 to block further military aid and intervention from
’83-85. The Reaganites exploited a loophole in the law to resume Contra
support in ’86. I can’t comment on the moral purity of the Sandinistas,
and probably they engaged in plenty of atrocities against supposed Contra
supporters as well. But they were elected legitimately by Nicaraguans and had
popular support. Like many other examples, the USA just preferred to push for
regime change, rather than respect sovereignty and international law.

IRAN

So we have already established that the Nicaraguans ousted a corrupt, brutal
US-puppet dictator and replaced him with a socialist, populist regime. This
was of course unacceptable to American hardliners, so the Reaganites covertly
aided a violent resistance movement, despite Congressional disapproval, UN
censure, and a World Court ruling to cease illegal activities. If the USA
could not openly oppose the Sandinistas, they needed to go underground and
finance their actions with covert slush fund cash.

We know that the ’79 revolution in Iran was a major blow to US interests in
the Middle East and triggered other Islamic or Arab nationalist movements. Again, a populist movement with non-Western ideals overthrew a corrupt US puppet. Iranians took Western hostages, the US severed diplomatic ties, and
the two nations have had hostile relations ever since. The paramilitary
organization Hezbollah had bombed US Marines barracks in Beirut (over 200
dead) and took US hostages in the early ‘80s during Lebanon’s terrible
civil war. Even though the USA supposedly doesn’t negotiate with
“terrorists”, the Israeli Mossad informed DC that a back-channel deal was
proposed to get the hostages back. The Khomeni regime in Iran was openly
funding Hezbollah, so they basically pulled the strings. They had oil money
and wanted to buy arms to fight our then-ally Iraq, and we wanted our hostages
back. Therefore, the Reaganites could sell arms to Iran at high markups (more
profits for defense contractors too), get money to fund the covert Contra war,
and also win PR points for the freed hostages. The only drawbacks were that
Iran was a sworn enemy (I wonder how our pal Saddam reacted to the scandal?),
and all of these dealings were secret and illegal.

I understand that the safe return of captured citizens is a major priority for
any government, but some prices are too high or the methods of payment
inappropriate. North later testified that the scheme was a “neat idea”.
It’s definitely convenient if you don’t get caught, I’ll give them that.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the only time that the US has done business with
enemies (the fascist regimes in Central Europe were major partners with our
companies in the ‘30s). Technically, it is illegal for US corporations to
trade with enemy states, especially those under formal sanctions. The
hardliner patriot Dick Cheney has called Iran “the world’s leading terror
exporter”, yet as Halliburton CEO he pushed the Clinton White House to
reduce sanctions so his company could exploit the Iranian cash cow
(http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2004/10/09/build/natio...).
Even as recent as 2003, offshore Halliburton subsidiaries did $65M in business
with Axis-of-Evil Iran (an easy way to circumvent the law). This is the same
company that is providing massive logistical support to our forces in Iraq and
reaping lucrative defense contracts (via KBR). Conflict of interests, isn’t
war great for business? You can profit from both sides in a conflict. But how
is it morally justifiable to do business with a rogue nation that is
supposedly supporting the Iraqi insurgency? And that same insurgency is
attacking American troops that Halliburton claims to love, and supports with
services such as laundry, energy, and food
(http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/news. jsp?newsurl=/default\main\halliburton\eng\news\source_files\press_release\2005\k
brnws_040505.html).


But getting back to Iran-Contra, we sold hundreds of anti-tank and anti-air
missiles to Khomeni via Israel (made with pride and American craftsmanship),
and the hostages were returned in ’85. While North and others saw this
arrangement as a long-term moneymaking scheme, Hezbollah took more hostages,
the Iranians complained about missile quality, and the program was supposedly
terminated in ’86.

THE SCANDAL BREAKS AND INVESTIGATION ENSUES

A Lebanese magazine broke the story in ’86, and a flight of arms (purchased
with Iranian blood money) bound for the Contras was shot down and exposed. The
US press was quickly active thereafter. North and his secretary Fawn Hall then
famously shred classified documents about Iran-Contra. In ’87 the Congress
decried that Reagan bore responsibility for the wrongdoings of his
subordinates, and he offered regret and explanation on TV. NSA Poindexter was
convicted with North (obstruction of justice, conspiracy, lying to Congress,
destroying/altering docs), but later both were cleared (Poindexter via appeal)
because 5th Amendment rights may have been violated to cut deals with
Congress, testifying for immunity. No one else even came close to being
punished. The investigation is fairly complex, uneventful, and boring (even
more so than the foreign policy history behind it all!), so I won’t say much
– but the links below are very informative.

THE DRUG CONNECTION

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html (Webb’s original San Jose Mercury News story
series)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/storm.htm (analysis of Webb’s
investigation)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1509/a02.html (the Kerry investigation)

Since the Reagan White House knew that they couldn’t sell arms to a sworn
mortal enemy forever without getting pinched, they needed new sources of
funding for covert Contra operations. Basically North and other CIA operatives
met with then friendly Panamanian dictator Noriega to help organize a drug
trade between Latin America and US inner cities, with Panama acting as a hub.
It was already a major drug artery, so while the Reaganites were touting
D.A.R.E. to us and declaring war on black/Latino drug dealers and users, they
turned a blind eye to Noriega and the Contra drug runners, selling arms and
giving other aid to their buddies. After North was indicted and the Nicaragua
fiasco reached the headlines, the new Bush White House severed ties with
“Manolo” and eventually ousted him from power with much pomp and fanfare,
though all the punishment he received was a slap on the wrist at Club Fed
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega). Sadly, the prosecution
couldn’t even make a legit case against him, since they needed to tread
lightly due to Noriega’s previous covert dealings with US government personnel.
I guess the same can be said of the Saddam trial today, but of course Noriega
probably wasn’t a war criminal.

Members of prominent LA gangs and Columbian cartels were also involved. While
mainly hidden and forgotten in the mainstream, these facts are not even in
dispute anymore – it really happened despite our initial reactions of
incredulity and revulsion. During the '80s rise of the crack cocaine trade in US
inner cities, CIA allies raised an estimated $50M a year in southern CA for
Contra ops. While no CIA operatives were accused of direct involvement, a LA
County Sheriff’s affidavit indicates that the CIA was well aware of
Nicaraguan cocaine trafficking in CA (therefore guilty by commission). The primary Contra group FDN was assembled and run by CIA agents. According to “Dark Alliance”, Gary
Webb’s series in the San Jose Mercury News in ‘96, Norwin Meneses (known
as “Rey de la Droga” in the Nicaraguan press) was the FDN officer
responsible for using coke profits for arms purchases, and his lieutenant
Oscar Blandon handled sales in San Diego and Miami. Both men acted as cartel
kingpins, and committed crimes on par with Mafia bosses and Colombian drug
lords. However, Blandon only served 28 months in prison, and Meneses was never
charged. In fact, they lived in comfort in the US, bought real estate, and
Blandon was even paid $166k in DEA informant stipends (taxpayer dollars). As
you would expect, the Justice Department blocked investigations into the two
men’s CIA ties.

This story is very similar to that of Cuban exiles contracted by the CIA to
perform guerilla warfare against communist Cuba. Clearly wanted criminals,
they roamed the Southern USA with great luxury and virtual impunity. Illegal
immigrants are hunted down like dogs in the American Southwest, yet these drug
pushers and murderers lived better than many Americans. It seems highly
improbably that such foreign figures would do business so openly and live so
well without CIA and government support (or approval at least). The FBI and DEA
are busting small time dealers all over the country, yet these kingpins ran
free for years?

AFTERMATH AND LEGACIES

If liberals attempted such a stunt like “guns for hostages, drugs for
guns”, the GOP would have gone bananas. Unfortunately, so much of this is
now relegated to conspiracy theory and fringe history. Many noble people
sacrificed their livelihood and careers to expose this fiasco that no
democratic, free society should ever come close to attempting, but we did. As
a result, tens of thousands of Nicaraguans (many of whom were civilians)
suffered and perished from US-Contra activities. Over a million were left
homeless, and economic sanctions against Nicaragua left the country in
shambles when the Sandinistas lost the vote in 1990. Radical Islam and Western
responses have claimed thousands (if not millions) of Western and Arab lives
in the Middle East as well. We can’t be sure what Iran used the hundreds of
US-purchased missiles for, but they are renown for aiding terrorists, and the
8-year Iran-Iraq war extinguished over a million lives and fueled extremist
hatred into the 21st century. Hezbollah is still active and many veterans of
the Iran-Iraq war now fight in the insurgency. Crack cocaine ruined thousands
of lives in the USA and cost our nation billions in enforcement, treatment,
and collateral damage since the ‘80s. It also made a lot of money for people
of questionable moral constitution. Of course the “war on drugs” was not
such a noble pursuit either, and many innocent or “not so guilty”
individuals were persecuted due to misguided or racist policies/laws. Gary
Webb, the Californian journalist who broke the Contra-cocaine story, was found
dead in 2004 from an apparent suicide. While the plight of the victims is very
obvious and tragic, strangely the major perpetrators were barely singed by the
scandal and ensuing investigations.

Clinton is demonized for lying about fellatio, but let’s see how the main
conservatives emerged from the scandal. Former President Reagan was voted the
greatest American by Discovery Channel viewers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/Americas/4631421.stm. Of course those polled
probably were not qualified to make any informed historical evaluations, and it
was partly due to sympathy and nostalgia from his recent passing. After his
exit from office, he retired near Santa Barbara and also became an employee of
the Japan-based Fujisankei Communications Group, earning $2M per week to make
a few speeches (questionable loyalties, since Japan was seen as a major threat
to US economic dominance at the time). Then-VP Bush Sr. was bested by a
recession and an Arkansas hillbilly, but helped his sons achieve great
positions of power (as well as continue the Gulf War that he initiated).
Then-NSA Poindexter had his charges dropped in ’91 and assumed executive
positions in several defense tech companies before Bush II recalled him to
service in 2002 as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA)
“Director of Information Awareness” (a.k.a. Big Brother). He took more
heat when a controversial futures exchange was discovered in his org that
traded/profited in the likelihood of assassinations and terrorist acts.
Then-Secretary of Defense Weinberger was indicted for several counts
(including felony perjury), but was later pardoned by Bush Sr. in ’92 and
became publisher/chairman of Forbes Magazine. Then-General Powell became head
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State, before he clashed with
the Bushies over Iraq and is now relegated to the private sector. FDN drug
dealer and convicted felon Blandon became a DEA employee and a favored
informant. Such cronyism and audacity is on par with Michael Brown “doing a
heck of a job” during Katrina, being removed from FEMA, and starting his own
disaster preparedness consulting firm. Yes, it was clear that Iran-Contra hurt
Washington as much as Compton and Managua.

And of course there’s good old Ollie North, felon (later overturned) and
perjurer. A Playboy article about him, yes I read it for the articles!!
http://www.airborne-ranger.com/ranger/want tobees/OllieNorth.html. Since serving
his reduced sentence, he has written over 8 books, is a syndicated
columnist/radio blowhard, and is a regular military correspondent on FNC. Two
decades later, he smells like a rose and is richer than all of us
combined. You can read some of his writing here if curious:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/archive.shtml.

In conclusion, what can we learn from Iran-Contra? How can we prevent it from
happening again? Such scandals are damaging to our democratic principles,
international goodwill, and policy agendas in so many ways. I’m not angry
that they perpetrators were caught and barely punished, but that they were
even able to commit such acts in the first place with Machiavellian arrogance
and unacceptable secrecy. How can we as a society prevent or minimize the
ability of politicians and others to manipulate and capitalize on global
events/fears in order to further their dangerous objectives (cough cough,
9/11)? How do we stop such propaganda from trumping our social principles and
reasonable judgment concerning risk assessment and rational, proportional
response? Yes, communist expansion, drug trafficking, and extremist terrorism
were legitimate, serious concerns during the Cold War, and the after-effects
are still haunting us today. But cutting secret deals and playing global bully
will not fix our problems or make us safer.

Yes, secret deals did save us during the Cuban Missile Crisis, diplomacy with
China, and other times, but none of those covert negotiations or agreements
were illegal or hurtful to anyone. In fact, they saved billions of lives and
reduced political tension in all likelihood. Can we differentiate between
secret dealings that are helpful and harmful? After the fact it’s fairly
trivial, but during a crisis, how can we trust our leaders to “do the right
thing?” How do we make sure that the right parties are involved, and players
are not exploiting secrecy and technicalities in order to advance their
specific agendas?

I know that perfect transparency between branches of government is impossible
(and may not even be desirable), but where do we draw the line and how can we
trust people to make proper, ethical decisions covertly (secret Cheney energy
meeting, CIA-NYT scandal, etc.)? How do we stop people in power from abusing
their privilege, and remaining immune to punishment and oversight? To what
degree is the government, intelligence community, and military permitted to intervene in
domestic or foreign affairs without the consent of Congress and popular
support (or even our knowledge)?

So the cycle is a familiar one, especially recently with Iraq and Katrina:
misguided people execute irresponsible actions (if not outright illegal) that
some would find immoral. The government hypes up a threat in order to execute
some very questionable actions. Ironically, other nations turn to communist or
Islamist leaders because they are so sick of US-backed tyrants. When Third
World people tire of our corrupt puppet dictators and demand popular reform,
we wage war on them the minute they mention Marx or Mohammed. We openly scorn
unfriendly regimes, yet covertly do business and ally with untrustworthy and
criminal partners. Ah well, we picked the “lesser of two evils”, right?

Once things go sour and the scandal is exposed, the guilty parties engage in
propaganda, misdirection, and damage control, eventually sacrificing a lamb or
two to the angry press and public. Later on the storm blows over and the
nation gets preoccupied with other issues, so history is gradually rewritten,
failures morphed into victories, and the victims forgotten. The perpetrators
are protected by their chums still in power, and may emerge years later
stronger than ever before. Often the same players engage in similar
improprieties in the future. We barely learn, we hardly punish, and we rarely
improve. Then new innocents must suffer because of our stupidity, and it
breaks my heart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair (a quick Wikipedia summary)
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/ (an independent investigation a decade later)
http://www.dpft.org/racism.html, http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303e.asp, http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/pol/495lect04.htm (racism in the war on drugs)