Babak Fakhamzadeh
In the introduction, Eisner, the biographer, takes care of perhaps the biggest questions; the drug case against Noriega, for which he was convicted, was deeply flawed and wholly circumstantial; the US invasion was unjustified on legal, political and moral grounds.
Noriega's memoires, the bulk of the book, are interesting as far as they go, just; descriptive, less so analytical. They make a clear point: the US invaded because they stood to lose control over the canal, after Panama had secured the Torrijos-Carter treaty and was shifting focus on working with Japan to expand the canal. And, because Panama declined to kowtow (enough) to the US in their covert operations in Central America. On the downside, Noriega tries a bit too hard to prove the US was the only bad actor, making it appear as if he and his former boss Torrijos always and alone acted in good faith.
Eisner, in his afterword, starts of by reiterating the same points he made in the introduction; Noriega was not guilty of the charges against him, the invasion was not justified. He elaborates, and makes an easy case for what should now be widely known (the book was published in 1998); the US' constant and very extensive high level control of, what should be independent, countries in the Americas.
In the introduction, Eisner, the biographer, takes care of perhaps the biggest questions; the drug case against Noriega, for which he was convicted, was deeply flawed and wholly circumstantial; the US invasion was unjustified on legal, political and moral grounds.
Noriega's memoires, the bulk of the book, are interesting as far as they go, just; descriptive, less so analytical. They make a clear point: the US invaded because they stood to lose control over the canal, after Panama had secured the Torrijos-Carter treaty and was shifting focus on working with Japan to expand the canal. And, because Panama declined to kowtow (enough) to the US in their covert operations in Central America. On the downside, Noriega tries a bit too hard to prove the US was the only bad actor, making it appear as if he and his former boss Torrijos always and alone acted in good faith.
Eisner, in his afterword, starts of by reiterating the same points he made in the introduction; Noriega was not guilty of the charges against him, the invasion was not justified. He elaborates, and makes an easy case for what should now be widely known (the book was published in 1998); the US' constant and very extensive high level control of, what should be independent, countries in the Americas.