Shadows of Conflict
A Review of Lewis's Examination of the 'Dirty War
In Guerrillas and Generals: The 'Dirty War' in Argentina,"Paul H. Lewis delves into the complex conflict between the Argentine government and guerrilla forces, spotlighting the controversial use of state-sponsored terrorism. Lewis navigates the historical landscape with a balanced perspective, critiquing the reliance on torture, violence, and civilian targeting during the National Reorganization Process, yet he remains impartial, grounding his analysis in meticulously gathered facts and firsthand narratives. This approach renders his work not only informative but also engaging and conducive to deep reflection.
The narrative begins with the 1976 military junta's pledge to instill fundamental virtues like morality, competence, and efficiency. However, the methods employed—steeped in violence, torture, and abductions—pose ethical dilemmas about the justification of such means for purportedly noble ends. Lewis illuminates Argentina's absorption of international counterinsurgency techniques, drawing significant attention to French Colonel Roger Trinquier's influence. Trinquier, a veteran of anti-guerrilla warfare, posited that to combat the strategic adaptability of terrorists, swift and severe measures, including torture during interrogations, were necessary. This, he argued, was the only way to elicit rapid information dissemination crucial for saving lives, albeit such tactics needed to be executed under stringent control to avoid purposeless brutality.
Trinquier's perspective on torture encapsulates Argentina's determination to conclude its "Dirty War," showcasing the nation's receptiveness to integrating foreign military strategies. Argentina's military apparatus, influenced by German organizational structures, American anti-communism alliances, and French counter-guerrilla tactics, exemplifies this international ideological amalgamation. The Argentine military junta, in its fervor to suppress subversive elements, did not hesitate to engage in the harsher realities of total war, adopting Trinquier's controversial yet tactically praised methods.
Despite the strategic rationale behind Trinquier's approach, the junta's execution veered into excess, leading to widespread abuse and loss of control, culminating in tragedy. Paul H. Lewis highlights this critical misstep, noting the junta's failure to rein in its forces, which "marched themselves toward disaster." This oversight resulted in the deaths of thousands, contradicting the military's protective mandate. The crux of the issue lay in the misapplication of Trinquier's tactics, designed for use against external enemies, on Argentina's citizenry—a fundamental miscalculation that alienated the very populace it sought to secure. This segment of Argentina's history illustrates the perilous balance between adopting foreign military doctrines and recognizing their appropriate context and limits. The junta's inability to moderate its application of these imported strategies underscores a tragic misinterpretation of their intended use and effectiveness.
In stark contrast to the United States military's well-defined hierarchy and bureaucracy, Argentina's military junta during the "Dirty War" was characterized by significant disorganization and decentralization. Unlike the US military, where orders are systematically relayed through established channels of authority, the Junta Militar in Argentina dispersed its power among regional commanders, leading to a lack of cohesive strategy and uniformity in combatting guerrilla forces. This fragmentation allowed each branch of the armed forces to exercise control over different areas of the country, employing a disparate array of punitive measures, techniques, and tactics.
This decentralized command structure was so ineffective that, as Paul H. Lewis points out, the central military authority was incapable of securing the release of individuals even under international pressure. The disjointed nature of command made it virtually impossible to prevent or even reduce the occurrence of atrocities. Ironically, the military—an institution typically epitomized by discipline and a clear command hierarchy—found itself unable to govern its regional commanders, leading to rampant and unchecked human rights abuses.
The junta's failure to maintain a coherent chain of command not only facilitated these atrocities but also represented a profound betrayal of its protective role towards the Argentine populace. Instead of safeguarding the citizens it was sworn to defend, the military became an agent of oppression, executing actions without discernible purpose or directives. This reversal underscores a tragic departure from the expected military ethos, highlighting a critical breakdown in the institution's structure and moral compass during one of Argentina's most tumultuous periods.
The "Dirty Wars" in Argentina stand as a period marked by turmoil and devastation, characterized by the military's adoption of foreign counterinsurgency tactics ill-suited for addressing internal conflicts. Drawing on strategies that had been effective for France in combating hostile populations abroad, the Argentine military implemented these harsh methods against its own citizens. This misapplication of force not only proved ineffective but also deeply alienated the population from the military—a breach of trust that has had lasting effects on public perception of the armed forces in Argentina.
The erosion of the military's standing was further exacerbated by a lack of cohesive command, as regional commanders operated with near-autonomy, untethered by central oversight. This disorganization facilitated an environment where human rights abuses could occur unchecked, contributing to a legacy of atrocities that remains a source of profound anger and resentment among the Argentine people. This chapter in Argentine history underscores the critical importance of matching military strategies to the specific context and ethical considerations of internal conflict. The failure to do so not only undermines the efficacy of such efforts but also inflicts deep societal wounds that can persist across generations, challenging the nation's ability to reconcile with its past and move forward.