FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Howard Hunt and the National Memory System

by JEFF NYGAARD

E. Howard Hunt died on January 23rd. Hunt was famous for his role in the Watergate burglaries that brought an end to the presidency of Richard Nixon in 1974. Although this is what he is famous for, it is not the most important thing to know about this man. The London Guardian led off their obituary of Hunt with these words: “The infamous part that the espionage agent E. Howard Hunt played in the 1972 Watergate burglary-which eventually brought down President Nixon-earned him 33 months in prison. Yet Hunt, who has died aged 88, spent a career in clandestine activities so nefarious that he was lucky not to have spent much longer behind bars.”

I don’t think Hunt was “lucky” at all. It’s far more serious than that. Let’s have a look at how he is remembered in the “National Memory System” and the political/intellectual culture it serves.

National Public Radio ran an obituary for Hunt on the day of this passing, and it began with these words:

“E. Howard Hunt, one of the key figures who organized the Watergate break in, has died at the age of 88. He was a long time CIA operative. He helped plan both a coup in Guatemala in 1954 and later the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Howard Hunt served 33 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy for his role in the Watergate burglary.”

And that’s the last we hear from NPR about either Guatemala or Cuba, or any of the rest of Hunt’s long career in the CIA. NPR chose to devote its entire segment to an interview with reporter Bob Woodward, who “broke the Watergate story in the Washington Post” in 1973. So, we see what’s important-and not important-to NPR.

The New York Times did a little better in their lengthy obituary the next day. They said of Hunt that “His field was political warfare: dirty tricks, sabotage and propaganda.” And, although most of their story was also about Watergate, they did devote one full paragraph to Guatemala. Here it is:

“In 1954, Mr. Hunt helped plan the covert operation that overthrew the elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz. ”What we wanted to do was to have a terror campaign,’ Mr. Hunt said in a CNN documentary on the cold war, ‘to terrify Arbenz particularly, to terrify his troops.’ Though the operation succeeded, it ushered in 40 years of military repression in Guatemala.”

Two sentences later the Times adds that “Not until 1960 was Mr. Hunt involved in an operation that changed history.”

Remember that this obituary was being written in the winter of 2007, at a time when the United States is officially engaged in a “War on Terror,” and supposedly trying to “spread democracy” around the world. The conventional thinking has it that this is what the U.S., as a Beacon of Democracy, has always done. Yet when a prominent government official dies, the fact that he was engaged in an official U.S. terror campaign for the purpose of overthrowing a democratically-elected government-and one that “succeeded”-merits a single paragraph in the nation’s newspaper of record. Indeed, it is implied that such behavior did not even “change history.”

The operation that DID “change history,” according to the Times, was the secret campaign, ordered by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, “to alter or abolish the revolutionary government of Fidel Castro in Cuba.” The Times tells us that “Mr. Hunt’s assignment was to create a provisional Cuban government that would be ready to take power once the CIA’s cadre of Cuban shock troops invaded the island.” This was the infamous Bay of Pigs operation (Code Name: “Operation Zapata”), which used the same cast of (U.S.) characters as the Guatemala campaign 6 years earlier. The Guatemala campaign was codenamed “PB Success,” and Zapata was expected to meet with the same “success.” It did not, of course, with the result that, as the Times put it, the careers of Hunt and the others “who planned and executed the Bay of Pigs debacle in April 1961 were damaged or destroyed, as was the CIA’s reputation for derring-do.”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “derring-do” as “daring action or feats; heroic courage.” Now, if it is true that the CIA’s reputation among the general population in 1960 was for “derring-do,” rather than for terror and subversion of democracy, it can only be because United Statesians were then, as they are now, sensationally ignorant of what the CIA had actually been doing in the previous 14 years.

A Tiny Bit of the CIA’s History

The CIA was formed in 1947. In the 14 years from then until its reputation for “derring-do” was cemented in the public mind, the CIA engaged in all of the following tactics in various places around the world:

* Creation and management of CIA schools, where military and police were trained in all sorts of things, including torture techniques;

* Infiltration and manipulation of selected groups, such as political parties, youth groups, unions, and much more;

* Manipulation of media, up to and including direct ownership of media outlets in other countries;

* Economic pressure, exerted through US government agencies, private U.S. corporations, and international financial institutions, and;

* The “dirty tricks, sabotage and propaganda” that the Times told us was E. Howard Hunt’s “field.”

The targets of CIA operations in the years 1947 to 1960, using all of the tactics listed above, included: China, Italy, Greece, the Philippines, Korea, Albania, Germany, Iran, Costa Rica, Syria, Indonesia, British Guiana, the Soviet Union, Italy, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Haiti, Algeria, Ecuador, The Congo, Peru, and the Dominican Republic.

What Lessons Can Be Learned from These Obituaries?

This sordid history continued in the following years, with E. Howard Hunt playing his small but important role, until Hunt was tried and convicted-and spent 33 months in federal prison-for burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping aimed at the Democratic National Committee. Yet he received no prison time, was never charged, apparently received no negative consequences whatsoever, for his well-documented roles in various campaigns of terror and subversion of democracy. The lesson: Violations against the property of powerful people in the United States have consequences, while much more serious violations against the lives (and governments!) of less-powerful people in other countries do not.

Here’s another, related lesson: Terror campaigns that overthrow democracies do not “change history.” But an operation that damages the careers of powerful government officials and/or damages the (bizarre and distorted) reputation of the agency that runs the campaigns that overthrow those democracies? Now, THAT changes “history.”

Now, here’s our Lesson Number Three: Citizens in the U.S. must not be allowed to know much about covert operations and the casts of characters that carry them out because, if we did, we might all begin to see patterns over time, and might begin to understand a little better what is really involved in constructing and maintaining a global empire. The targets of these “covert” operations certainly know what is involved. Indeed, the combination of their knowledge of U.S. behavior and our own ignorance goes a long way in explaining the bewilderment revealed in the oft-posed question that came to life on September 11, 2001: “Why do they hate us?”

As we consider the nature of the distorted National Memory System that is revealed by the obituaries of E. Howard Hunt and others–the obituaries following the December 7th death of Jeane Kirkpatrick offer similar insights into that System–some important questions come to mind: Who are the E. Howard Hunts of today, the men and women who are carrying out the “dirty tricks, sabotage and propaganda” that violate the values of most of the good people in whose name they are supposedly being carried out? Which journalists are following the activities of the covert operatives of today? Which news organizations are publishing these details of empire?

“Late in life,” the Times tells us, Mr. Hunt “said he had no regrets, beyond the Bay of Pigs.” Which is, no doubt, why the London Guardian calls him “lucky.” But it’s not luck. Our job of people of conscience in the United States is to see if we can create a culture where the E. Howard Hunts of the world not only feel regrets for their careers of terror and democracy-destruction, but are brought to justice for them.

JEFF NYGAARD is a writer and activist in Minneapolis, Minnesota who publishes a free email newsletter on politics, media, and culture called Nygaard Notes, found at www.nygaardnotes.org

 

 

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail