#: 499668 S7/JFK Debate  [POLITICS]
    07-Mar-96  14:57:15
Sb: Prouty Critique #9
Fm: D.T. FUHRMANN 71301,527
To: ALL

Chapter 3 critique continued......


In fairness, perhaps there is an element of truth to one of Prouty's
assertions regarding the Philippines. In John Ranelagh's study of the 
CIA, he notes that Magsaysay's forces at times disguised themselves as 
Huks and raided villages in order to generate more support for the 
government [Ranelagh, p 225].  Ranelagh's source for this information? L. 
Fletcher Prouty, "The Secret Team," p 34.  Hmmmmm.

The Huk insurgency was in fact a very real problem which dated back to well
before Acheson's comments, Cowen's memo, and Lansdale's arrival. The 
Hukbo Ng Bayan Laban Sa Hapon, or "Huks" were probably the largest and 
best organized of anti-Japanese groups during the war:

"Officially formed on March 29, 1942, the Huk movement grew out of 
discussions begun in December 1941. Included in these talks, under the 
nominal chairmanship of the Communist Party of the Philippines or PKP, 
were leaders of such groups as the Civil Liberties Union, Popular Front 
Party, KPMP, AMT, and other peasant and labor organizations. They agreed 
to form a United Front to direct resistance against the Japanese and 
established a military committee to raise a resistance army.  Chosen to 
head the military committee were Casto Alejandro and Luis Taruc.  Both 
were PKP members, but, more important, both had long been active in 
peasant organizations in Central Luzon." [D. Michael Shafer, "Deadly 
Paradigms: The Failure of US Counterinsurgency Policy," p 209. For those 
interested in the roots and history of this organization, and the 
1946-1952 Philippine insurgency will find this book thorough and 
well-documented.]

Following the end of WWII. The Huk movement continued to engage the 
loyalty of the peasantry in central Luzon, and by the late 1940s and 
early 1950s they were mounting a serious challenge to the Quirino 
government. Prouty is not interested in this history, presumably because 
it fails to lemnd support to his thesis that this war was created out of 
nothing by the CIA superagent Edward Lansdale.

Mr. Prouty describes events in the Philippines as follows:

"Lansdale had selected a handsome young Philippine congressman, Ramon
Magsaysay, to play the role we have seen in the above scenario from 
Spain. He was to stage "mock attacks" and "mock liberations" on countless 
villages throughout the islands [I'm almost surprised this isn't 
footnoted with a reference to Ranelagh's book <g>]. Villages were 
attacked and destroyed by the "Huks." "(P 34)

As noted above, this simply ignores the very real existence of the Huk
movement during the late 1940s and early 1950s, making it seem that the 
entire "insurrection" was created by Lansdale and his Filipino proxies. 
Lansdale goes on to describe how the play-acting was carried out 
repeatedly, backed by considerable funds and propaganda. As a result: 
"The plot was a success...."

"Magsaysay had become president as a result of the application, many times
over, of the same scenario that those two officers in Spain had used in 
their mock attack.  With Magsaysay president, the city was too small for 
the US Ambassador, the CIA Station Chief, and CIA secret agent---the 
Magsaysay creator, with his Madison Avenue type warfare and election 
campaign. Also, quite magically, it seemed that the Huks had vanished. 
Cecil B. deMille could not have staged it any better." [footnote in text] 
(Prouty, p 36)

A FOOTNOTE!  Does it provide references or material related to any of the
above assertions?  No.  It is a reference to the problems faced by 
Philippine President Marcos in the mid-1980s, drawing a comparison to the 
events of the early 1950s, mentioning a visit from then CIA Director 
William Casey, and noting that "[a]t the same time we noted the rise of a 
new Communist-inspired insurgency there."  The implication, presumably, 
being that the CIA was once again creating a phony insurgency to further 
its own nefarious interests. (Anyone interested in the actual reality of 
the New People's Army and the on-going insurgency in the Philippines 
during the 1980s let me know and I'll dig out my files on this conflict.  
Needless to say, the pattern of Mr. Prouty's approach to history remains 
consistently selective and willfully blindfolded.)

On page 37, while talking about CIA training efforts around the world
(something which no one denies takes place) Mr. Prouty presents an 
interesting juxtaposition of four sentences:

"Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are CIA students of
yesterday. Many skilled terrorists in Iran have gone to CIA schools and 
other training facilities and have become experts with the weapons and 
tactics of the trade.  The first aerial hijackings WERE PUBLICLY 
SOLICITED BY THE UNITED STATES IN RETURN FOR BIG CASH AWARDS, PLUS 
SANCTUARY. [emphasis added...dtf] Chuck Yeager, that grand old man with 
"The Right Stuff," was sent to Okinawa in 1953 to fly a MiG fighter plane 
that had been flown there by a Chinese pilot in return for a large cash 
reward."

Now this clearly implies that the CIA has trained terrorists, including (by
the association with Iran) training Islamic fundamentalists.  And then it
suggests that early air hijackings were solicited and paid for by the United
States....the misleading implication being that terrorist attacks on 
passenger aircraft were "solicited by the United States in return for big 
cash awards." Only the final sentence modifies this impression, and this 
only if one is aware that throughout the Cold War the United States did 
in fact seek to entice members of Communist air forces to defect along 
with their planes by offering large amounts of cash and asylum......and 
the more modern the plane, the more interested we would be. If a 
Communist Chinese pilot had brought out a fairly modern design fighter 
aircraft, the US Air Force would want to have an experienced, 
knowledgeable pilot look at it as quickly as possible; hence, Chuck 
Yeager. Moreover, somebody has to fly the unfamiliar aircraft to a secure 
facility, and it was not likely to be the pilot who brought it out of 
Communist China.  The last sentence, though its relevance to the previous
sentences is not clearly explained, could be intended to clarify that 
the USG was not actually encouraging or soliciting terrorist hijackings, 
it was simply trying to entice pilots of enemy air forces to bring 
examples of their most modern aircraft over....in return for which we 
promised asylum and a handsome cash payment.  But then that could have 
been stated more clearly in simple English.

continued in part #10.......