El Salvador in the 1980s: War by Other Means

Through the 1980s, the United States involved itself in a civil war in the smallest country on the mainland of the Americas. With a population roughly the equivalent of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and no clear geo-strategic benefit, El Salvador became an issue of constant concern at the highest levels of the U.S. government. U.S. President Ronald Reagan made televised addresses about El Salvador and spoke to a joint session of Congress about assistance to the tiny country. For a few years, only Israel and Egypt received more assistance. However, even with El Salvador prominent in the top tier of U.S. foreign policy concerns, a war going on there, and the United States committed to one side, we never had more than about 200 military personnel in that country on any given day. While the U.S. could have brought overwhelming force to bear, we put few boots on the ground. The U.S. military was nonetheless an indispensable element of U.S. policy. The other part of the story is that the Salvadoran government was dependent on the performance of a military that was profoundly flawed - murderous, corrupt, and attached to its historical impunity. Although the Salvadoran conflict was a creation of the Cold War, it is not a historical oddity. Before and since, the United States has committed itself to a flawed ally. From Stalin through Diem and right on through to Karzai, our political leadership has repeatedly declared that one government or one cause is so important that we must find a way reform or tolerate or ignore the flaws of our friends. This is not always a bad thing. Winston Churchill was known for his staunch anti-Soviet views but offered assistance to Stalin's government when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Asked about this seeming inconsistency, Churchill is said to have responded, "If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."