January 5, 2010
Looking at the invasion of Panama through the lens of Iraq

Manuel Noriega’s mug shot.

Twenty years ago this week, at the culmination of the U.S. invasion of Panama, General Manuel Antonio Noriega was seized and taken in shackles to Miami. Eventually, the Panamanian strongman was convicted on federal drug conspiracy charges for supporting the Medellin cocaine cartel’s shipments to the U.S.

Noriega, 75, has served his sentence and is still jailed in Miami, awaiting a U.S. Supreme Court decision on a possible extradition to France.

From today’s vantage point, after a failed war on drugs and the unjustified invasion of Iraq, Noriega, no saint, seems a minor character in a larger game. Panama, along with the Grenada invasion before it,
was a practice run for manipulating the news, selling military action to the public and promoting future military adventures.

Then-President George H.W. Bush justified the U.S. invasion of Panama in various questionable ways, including the charge that Noriega had subverted democracy by faking the 1989 elections — which was true. [Noriega learned all about political forgery from his former American intelligence community teachers, who had pushed through fraudulent elections in Panama five years earlier.]

Bush also claimed that Panama under Noriega represented a threat to American security, that Noriega had declared war on the United States and that Noriega had threatened to block the Panama Canal. These were charges with scant evidence, at best. They emanated from the mouths of U.S. officials — a number of whom would go on to have a role in the U.S. invasion of Iraq, including Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Elliot Abrams and Richard Perle.

The real reason for the decision to invade Panama lies closer to events surrounding the U.S. war in Central America. Noriega, once a U.S. Intelligence asset, had refused to play ball with the Reagan and Bush administrations by offering little assistance in the counterinsurgency against Nicaragua’s Sandinistas. He also neglected to support El Salvador’s right-wing military.

The drug conviction against Noriega was accomplished with the use of two dozen convicted drug dealers, who were freed from jail under plea bargains in return for testifying against Noriega, with whom they had never had any contact.

Placard next to the gate at Manuel Noriega’s house in Panama City. Photo: Flickr user ChuckHolton

Seen now in the light of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Panama invasion and Noriega prosecution make more sense. Noriega and Saddam Hussein were U.S. assets and clients, who fell from grace when their usefulness expired. Once the unsavory leaders had been suitably demonized, policymakers went about molding reality to the charges unleashed against them.

In the case of Panama, Noriega supposedly was shipping cocaine to our shores. That rarely, if ever, happened — though all the while, cocaine was entering the United States through Central America and Mexico.

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein became the falsified apostle of mass destruction, allegedly seeking uranium supplies he already had and couldn’t use. [See my introduction and afterward to Noriega’s political memoir. America’s Prisoner, and my book, The Italian Letter, written with Knut Royce, about the Iraq War, focusing on yellow cake and weapons of mass destruction.]

As for Noriega’s fate, it seems unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will set him free to return to Panama, as he and the Panamanian government want. The French extradition request for Noriega was little more than an effort by President Nicolas Sarkozy to mend fences at the time with President George W. Bush after France declined support for the Iraq invasion.

The Panama invasion was front-page news for a short while 20 years ago, but it was relegated to the back pages by the first Gulf War less than a year later, and by the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

There were great differences between the use of force in Panama and the forays into the Middle East. No oil was at stake in Panama, no insurgency developed in the aftermath of that invasion and the loss of life was
relatively low –- 25 American soldiers and an unknown number of Panamanians (estimates range from the hundreds to several thousand.)

But I always recall a comment by a Human Rights Watch official which can be applied to Iraq just as well. β€œIt’s not a question of how many people died, but of why anyone died at all.”

– Peter Eisner




Regardless of the underlying reasons for the U.S. invasion of Panama and the removal of Noriega, the result to the country of Panama was a great blessing. Panama is now the most democratic and prosperous country in all of Central America, and this could never have been true if the “Pineapple” had remained in control of the government.


Eisner’s piece is a timely and necessary reminder that militarism remains a central threat to this society. His is one of the most trenchant perspectives on American foreign policy that I’ve read in a long time, essentially because Eisner manages to say so much that’s irrefutable in such a relatively compact space.

Having taught American foreign policy at the university level for some 30 years, I’ve always felt our militarism since WWII has thrived on the absence of such reminders as Eisner provides here.


Noriega will never be released nor sent to France.
When my book “Panama Echoes From A Revolution” finally came out, the United States intelligence services decided to never permit the “Pineapple” to leave the custody of the Federal government.
Anyone who wishes to contact me about this can e-mail me at:


In 1970 the Federal Reserve of Atlata was the predominate leader,…having established itself as Panama’s foreign [(US dollars hegemony?)(with the transparent oversite of the (IMF)Int’l Monetary Fund] bank of last resort. It worked well on one side of the theoretical ledger,but was disastrous in real-world economic realities,for it was on the skewed side of the blurred ledger. Basically,…it straight-jacketed Panama’s ability to respond in a expeditious way pre-empting any unforseen political,or financial shocks(crises)that might (would?)hinder the countries economic growth. This unfotunately, was all to true. The revelation comes to fruition when the United States imposes economic sanctions on Panama in (during Noriega’s capture,and imprisonment 1989)1988-89! Don’t be shocked,…El Salvadore establishes a central bank with the US dollar as it’s currency (US hegemony wins agian?) in 2000? Lastly,..what should wake some of us up,…is that post 9-11 both Iraq,and Afghanistan now have a central bank (sometime in 2003-05),but it is wishy-washy as to the central bank is(US,EU,BofE)? Today as I write,…the only five countries in the known universe of “Earth” without a “Central Bank” are as follows: Iran;Sudan;N.Korea;Cuba,and Libya. Remember this,…there are “landwhales” that were Trillionaires long before the word billionaire was even bandied about,…follow the money? PS. Check out the newly established “French Bank” (1st ever foreign bank group)that was recently given approval by “China’s Banking Regulatory Commission” to enter their financial markets?

Peter Eisner is an editorial consultant with Worldfocus and a 30-year veteran of international news. He has been an editor and foreign correspondent at The Washington Post, Newsday and The Associated Press. He co-authored “The Italian Letter,” which details fraudulent intelligence leading up to the Iraq War. He was founder and president of Newscom, an international online news service, and speaks Spanish and Portuguese.

Facebook Twitter YouTube

Produced by Creative News Group LLC     ©2022 WNET.ORG     All rights reserved

Distributed by American Public Television