‘Lessons learned’ from Iran-Contra

Just to follow up for a moment on this morning’s post, there was another portion of Seymour Hersh’s New Yorker piece that warrants some attention.

Hersh explains that as the U.S. sides with Saudi-backed Sunni extremists and puts money in the hands of Lebanese Sunni groups with ties to al Qaeda, they’re relying on a familiar pattern: a Republican White House orchestrating clandestine operations, deals with dubious intermediaries with questionable agendas, and keeping Congress entirely in the dark. Sound familiar?

Two decades ago, the Reagan Administration attempted to fund the Nicaraguan contras illegally, with the help of secret arms sales to Iran. Saudi money was involved in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, and a few of the players back then — notably Prince Bandar and Elliott Abrams — are involved in today’s dealings.

Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal “lessons learned” discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: “One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office” — a reference to Cheney’s role, the former senior intelligence official said.

Wait, that is what the old guard learned from Iran-Contra? Shouldn’t the actual lesson include some reference to not breaking the law and funneling aid to U.S. enemies?

What’s more, Hersh reports that these clandestine operations contributed to John Negroponte’s decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept a sub-Cabinet position of Deputy Secretary of State. Given the context, that’s even more discouraging.

The former senior intelligence official also told me that Negroponte did not want a repeat of his experience in the Reagan Administration, when he served as Ambassador to Honduras. “Negroponte said, ‘No way. I’m not going down that road again, with the N.S.C. running operations off the books, with no finding.’ ” (In the case of covert C.I.A. operations, the President must issue a written finding and inform Congress.) Negroponte stayed on as Deputy Secretary of State, he added, because “he believes he can influence the government in a positive way.”

The government consultant said that Negroponte shared the White House’s policy goals but “wanted to do it by the book.” The Pentagon consultant also told me that “there was a sense at the senior-ranks level that he wasn’t fully on board with the more adventurous clandestine initiatives.” It was also true, he said, that Negroponte “had problems with this Rube Goldberg policy contraption for fixing the Middle East.”

Let’s be clear about the lesson here. Negroponte played an active role in secretly arming contra rebels from bases in Honduras, and turned a blind eye to the country’s death squads.

And now he’s looking at the Bush gang and effectively saying, “Whoa, you guys are going too far.”

Something to keep in mind.

This is why Iran-Contra should have been properly investigated at the time and guilty people should have gone to jail.

  • I’m so sick of Republican cleverness with regards to clandestine operations that sound so good yet always turn out so bad. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend, they are just unsavory characters doing unsavory things that will turn the weapons you so brilliantly gave them on you or your friends at some future date after disposing of your problem for you. Aiding and abetting vicious groups to do vicious things may seem like a smart and clean way to make problems go away, but in reality it’s not the antispetic surgical solution posited by Machiavellian right wingers, it’s the Frankenstein solution of creating and unleashing a monster that will become yet another problem and enemy in the future.

    But that’s what happens when the solution to violence is to foment more violence: the violence never dies and will always have to be confronted again at some future date after greater tragedy has unfolded. But then the solution to that will be yet another Republican scheming about how if we only armd this other group they’ll take care of the problem for us. The solution to violence is to never let Republicans have the power to pull this crap ever again.

  • One thing I have never understood about the Democratic Party is its failure to lay the blame for virtually all that’s wrong with today’s Republican Party at the feet of Ronald Wilson Reagan.

    It’s as though someone declared Reagan a saint, above reproach. He’s the one who, as head of the world’s most powerful government, cynically referred to “I’m from the gov’mint and I’m here to help”, expressing dislike of all government. He’s the one who labeled every unfortunate in America a “welfare queen”. He’s the one who, as CA governor, exploited (justified) student discontent with the Vietnam War to trash the greatest (free) public university and state college system in the world. He’s the one who blasted every Democrat as morally corrupt simply for being Democratic. He’s the one who made a deal with the Iranian hostage takers to hold those hostages until he was inaugurated. He’s the one who considered Mother Teresa to be a “nut case” while embracing the ousted Marcoses (whose initial leap to the monetary bigtimes was through importation of teenage prostitutes). The list goes on an on. The Bush Crime Family would never have been possible without the immoral and cynical Ronald Wilson Reagan killing off traditional conservatism.

    Heckuva job, Ronnie.

  • #2 – Exactly right. Abrams, Reich, Negroponte, Poindexter, Gates, Allen… the list of white collar arms dealers who still inhabit the Executive Branch goes on and on…

    Not to mention the lovable Fox News journalist Ollie North.

    How did we let this happen?

  • N. Wells nailed it in #2.

    Any Dem that lets these criminals skate “for the good of the country” is an enemy of the state. These types of crimes make our nation into a nation of criminals only if we let the perpetrators get away with it.

    Democrats have two choices: Prosecute and punish the offenders, or aid and abet them. Last time they made the wrong choice, let’s hope they learned their lesson.

  • I don’t think Negroponte is worried about the lengths the crims are prepared to go to. He recognizes Iran-Contra resulted in a close shave with Fort Leavenworth. As a result, he seems more concerned (a) that their plans are dumb; and (b) about not gambling with his personal liberty.

    Ps. No doubt one of the “lessons learned” from Iran-Contra was not to stiff arms-dealers. Frankly, the main reason the affair was blown open was because Ghorbanifar went on teevee to b*tch about the several millions he hadn’t received from Ollie North.

  • I’m not up on my internets lingo. What’s it called when someone drops bogus comments into a thread, presumably for the purpose of mining those quotes later on to embarass the blog owner?

    I don’t have a specific reason for asking this, it just all of a sudden occurred to me.

  • I think someone is running a commenter-simulation program that has failed the Turing Test. Sure generates output frequently though.

    Meanwhile, in response to this actual post, it heartens me that Negroponte at least thinks these black ops are beyond the pale, but saddens me that he doesn’t understand how they are intrinsic to the administration anti-democratic world-view. Their policy goals can’t be achieved ‘doing it by the book’, because they are fundamentally against the guiding principles of our country. ‘The book’ says these policies are crimes, and foolhardy.

  • There is a two-part mentality to all of this—and to disable that mentality, both parts must be equally disabled. The first part—denying the WH its rubber-stamp Congressional majority—was dealt with nearly four months ago. The second, however, has been allowed to flourish unchecked for over six years. That second part of the construct is the practice of Presidential signing statements, which is now reinforced by a precedent of several hundred distinct, never-challenged events. It has allowed the chief executive to effectively determine whether a law—or any particular subcomponent of that law—will be enforced. It is, in effect, a post-legislative, line-item veto.

    Off-topic? Not really. The resolution to the current item—“doing business with the enemies of 9/11” will not be attained so long as the Senate possesses the strength to prevent open debate on the issue (a 40-vote minimum), or the ability to block impeachment (a 34-vote minimum). But the Senate does possess the ability to rectify that—by simply adopting the tactic employed by the previous ReThug-dominated body, and restricting debate to “x-minutes.” With this, they can at least drive a control-wedge into various budgteary issues, and begin a wholesale refunding/defunding stance. I seriously doubt the chimp-in-chief would veto an entire appropriations package, just to get his chums a bit more graft. He’d have to eventually veto war-funding itself—and that makes HIM the “party of cut-n-run….”

  • have to add my agreement to the very well written and well organized comments of Ed Stephan #6. I would like to add that Reagan was the King of cooking the books; starting with the way we calculate inflation rates. Before Reagan the cost of housing was calculated as the cost of home ownership, but he changed the formula to only calculate the cost of a rental. He made several changes like that throughout the budget, so then he got “inflation under control”. It was smoke and mirrors. Interest rates were at 16% and people were losing their homes in foreclosure. Ronald Reagan offered cheese.

    It was under Reagan’s watch that we started to read and hear about the homeless problem, and once again Reagan offered cheese. Reagan offered us “trickle down” but all most of us got was cheese.

    By the way the cheese was bad, full of hydrogenated fats and other unhealthy ingredients. I for the life of me, can not figure out why anyone would have the nerve to canonize Reagan.

    And winning the cold war? Perhaps we might be more analytical if we look at Russia’s military adventure into Afghanistan as the real factor in weakening the former USSR. If we were honest, perhaps we might learn something and not make the same mistakes.

  • Comments are closed.