Global Political Tag (3/8/03)

by Dean Hartwell

In the world's current events, no one can tell the players without a scorecard. That is because the players and their "teams" keep changing.

Consider the following leaders:

Saddam Hussein

Osama bin Laden

Manuel Noriega

Fidel Castro

Ho Chi Minh

Joseph Stalin

What do all of them have in common? The United States befriended each of them at one time.

Hussein - During the Iran-Iraq war, we alternated between giving weapons to Iran (recall the Iran-Contra Scandal) and Iraq, led by Hussein.

Bin Laden - When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the Central Intelligence Agency under President Carter and later Ronald Reagan supported the "freedom fighters," which included bin Laden.

Noriega - The CIA trained and supported Noriega for years. Then-CIA Director George H.W. Bush paid him as an asset.

Castro - Early in Castro's struggle against Fulgencio Batista in Cuba, the United States assisted Castro. It was not until Castro made it clear that he supported communism (which meant goodbye to U.S. investments) that the United States began to oppose him.

Ho - During World War II, the United States gave support to Ho Chi Minh's forces in Vietnam, who were fighting in Japan. The U.S. later supported South Vietnam against Ho's North Vietnam in the Vietnam War.

Stalin - The U.S. allied with Stalin's Soviet Union to win World War II, then fought the "Cold War" against them for more than forty years after that.

In the current game of global political "tag," Hussein and bin Laden are now "it." History shows how quickly our assets become liabilities when they no longer serve our purposes.

The United States has controlled the game of global political tag up to this point. It has switched allegiances at will and has used its military force to take on its new enemies.

I fear, however, that what comes around, goes around. What happens when the other players in the game decide that the U.S. is "it"?