rej (11/20/82)
By adventurism in El Salvador, I assume that the invasion by the marines in the 50's is meant, as support of a crummy government does not constitute adventurism. Similarly, America was not committing adventurism in Vietnam until we started changing the government to our liking. However, I find it hard to believe in any "adventurism" in Chile. I know that a few unfounded allegations against the CIA grew into a chorus of attacks against our government, but I have never heard of any objective, first hand testimony showing that the CIA or any other American governmental organization had a role to play in the downfall of Allende, other than giving moral support to his opponents. I would be interested in knowing about any such testimony, assuming it exists. My working definition is that adventurism is when a country starts to mess around randomly in another country's affairs, hoping to create a situation which it can turn to its advantage. "Messing around" is usually of a military nature, such as invasion, assasination, or economic blockade. The Bay of Pigs is a classic case of American adventurism. Supporting a "friendly" government is not. Similarly, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is adventurism while their invasion of Czechoslovakia was not, since the USSR posseses Czechoslovakia and has treaties guaranteeing to keep the Czech government pure. Websters defines adventurism as ill-considered or rash improvisation or experimentation especially in politics or foreign affairs in the absence or in consistent defiance of consistent plans or principles. Perhaps with this definition nothing that the USSR has done is adventurism, as they may have a master plan of which we are ignorant! (And so may our President, of course. Maybe the trilateral commission ...) Ralph Johnson
soreff (11/21/82)
If adventurism is ill-considered or rash improvisation or experimentation, especially in politics or foreign affairs, then should the absence of consistent policy in the current and last administration be considered adventurism? The dramatic shifts in policy (anti-pipeline sanctions (Reagan), neutron bomb deployment (Carter)) look rather like improvisation. I would normally consider adventurism to involve something more violent. comment on relation to USSR: (flame on) It doesn't MATTER how bloody their government is. Because the USSR has nuclear weapons, there are very few plausible scenarios which would get rid of their government and leave the US and Europe breathing. For the forseeable future the US and USSR must live with each other if they are to live at all. I think that the situation is roughly analogous to what would have happened if some sort of truce had left Hitler in control of Europe, and the same stalemate would prevail in that case. In the current situation both sides have their internal problems (those of the USSR certainly worse than those of the US) but almost no conceivable internal collapse would be complete enough for one side to overpower the other without being blown up. (flame off) -Jeffrey Soreff