Originally published in 1996, the newest edition of Talons of the Eagle is far from flawless;

nonetheless, its exposition on the history of inter-American affairs is both inclusive

and of great merit. Smith proposes that the U.S. historically has sought to retain
continuous hegemonic control over the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. has always
possessed an inherent advantage in its interaction with Latin America, and the
sovereignty of Latin American nations continuously has been confronted with the
risk of being challenged by the U.S. According to Smith, U.S.-Latin American
relations cannot be fully understood except from a historical perspective that
expresses the Latin American viewpoint, as a unitary focus on U.S. foreign policy
initiatives towards Latin America fails to incorporate the multiplicity of factors which
shape hemispheric relations. Accordingly, Talons of the Eagle argues that although the
U.S.s methods of intervention in hemispheric affairs have varied with time, the
fundamental goals of U.S. policy toward the region have remained indelibly intact.
Smith contends that an underlying logic has marked the relationship between the
U.S. and Latin America, and concludes that the primary determinants of U.S.-Latin
American affairs have been extrahemispheric in nature. Smith divides the history of
U.S.-Latin American relations into four distinct chronological periods, each of which
has been shaped by the prevailing international balance of power and the
contemporary interpretation of the pursuit of national interests. These divisions
included the Imperial Era of the 1790s to the 1930s, exemplified by the creation of
an ultimately defining U.S. sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere; the Cold
War, characterized by a bipolar international order and the protection of U.S.
geopolitical and ideological interests; the age of uncertainty, lasting from 1990 to
2001 and typified by the absence of a grand strategy to guide U.S.-Latin American
relations; and the War on Terror, which commenced on 9/11 and continues to the
present.
Smith maintains that the U.S. utilized three distinct strategies to secure its
hemispheric objectives during the Imperial Era. Initially, the U.S. secured greater
influence in the Western Hemisphere through territorial acquisition and the
establishment of spheres of influence. Secondly, Washington crafted a commercial
empire through an informal network of political and trade ties. Finally, the U.S.
established hegemony through the mandated exclusion of foreign interference, the
maintenance of enforced stability, and the strengthening of economic agreements.
Smith argues that the U.S.s foremost objective in the Western Hemisphere
historically has been the protection of its strategic and economic interests. He deftly
blames the Wilson administration for its exploitation of ideology as a rationale for
involvement in the internal affairs of sovereign Latin American nations. Wilson
rationalized U.S. intervention as a means of promoting democratic development
within the hemisphere, yet Smith justifiably claims that Wilsons support for
interventions in Central America and the Caribbean tended to retard the prospects
for democracy (80). He blames the political instability and social unrest that later

plagued Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic on Wilsons high-minded but
futile attempts to spread democracy through U.S. overseas engagements.
Good Neighbor Policy Not That Good
Surprisingly, Smith identifies the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a
paradigm of U.S. imperialism in the Western Hemisphere. Under FDR, the U.S.
renounced military intervention in Latin America and condemned interference in the
internal political life of sovereign nations. Smith charges that Roosevelt sought to
inextricably bind Latin America to the U.S. by strengthening economic and
diplomatic ties throughout the region. He accuses the U.S. of inducing Latin
American nations into arrangements of greater economic and political cooperation,
maintaining that the United States managed to reach trade agreements only with
countries that were heavily dependent on U.S. markets for agriculturalproducts
(73). However, some critics might dispute this point, arguing that U.S.-Latin
American relations visibly improved under Roosevelts leadership.
The Good Neighbor policy resulted in an economic trade boom and curtailed U.S.
tampering throughout the region, curbed media stereotyping of Latin Americans,
and secured hemispheric support for the U.S. during World War II. Smith
acknowledges that cultural exchange between the U.S. and Latin America prospered
under FDR, and admits that the political principles of national sovereignty and the
juridical equality of states made some headway under the Good Neighbor policy.
Nonetheless, he explains this by asserting that that U.S. tactics had changed, but
goals were much the same (79). The ostensible cooperation and goodwill that
typified hemispheric affairs during Roosevelts presidency, he argues, disguised the
U.S.s intention to politically and economically exploit Latin American nations for its
own gain. Unfortunately, one might quibble that the author fails to convincingly
verify that the U.S. foresaw its hemispheric objectives in such realist terms.
Smith skillfully analyzes the extrahemispheric concerns, ideological convictions, and
strategic priorities that characterized U.S.-Latin American relations during the Cold
War. He comprehensively details the distribution of power, policy goals, and national
interests that framed U.S. involvement in the Western Hemisphere between 1940
and 1980. Smith places particular emphasis on U.S. national security concerns and
the perceived need of the U.S. to contain Soviet global expansion. He argues that
the U.S. strategy of backing authoritarian regimes in Latin America did not
necessarily represent a break from the U.S.s preference for democracy, but rather
coincided with the governments concealment of its intended goals: It represented,
instead, a cold-blooded calculation: that dictatorial regimes would be more
predictably and efficiently anticommunist than other types of government, including
democratic systems (125). Through his exposition of the dynamics that
characterized the inter-American relationship during the Cold War, Smith reinforces
his abiding thesis that U.S.-Latin American affairs largely reflect perceived national
interests and the global balance of power.

Smith offers an effective conceptual framework in which to comprehend

hemispheric issues, as he reasons that the structural relationship between the U.S.
and Latin America has followed distinct patterns that have changed with time. He
defines relations between the U.S. and Latin America in overwhelmingly realist
terms, an appropriate framework for his methodological intentions. Yet, the realist
premise on which Smith bases Talons of the Eagle only partially explains the nature of the
U.S.-Latin American relationship. While he describes the U.S. perspective on Latin
America strictly in terms of narrowly-defined national interests, Smith lauds Latin
Americas lofty appreciation for faith, beauty, and nobility we have a bit
of Ariel here (110). Smith details the varying strategic methods employed by Latin
American countries to counteract the dominating influence of the U.S. throughout
the region. Nonetheless, he simultaneously gives particular credence to the
formation of cultures of resistance and the regions search for self-identity,
suggesting that Latin American nations are not motivated primarily by national selfinterest (110). Additionally, Smiths examination of the age of uncertainty focuses
on the emergence of Latin American civil society and the increasing challenges
presented by transnational actors even though both trends could serve to
undermine Smiths realist agenda, as they attest to the growing influence of nonstate regimes within the international system.
During the age of uncertainty, U.S. policy toward the hemisphere adhered to no
unified strategy. Such non-traditional issues as economic liberalization, illegal
immigration, arms control, and narco-trafficking consequently moved to the
forefront of the U.S.-Latin America policy agenda. Smith provides valuable insight
into the underlying causes of transnational phenomena, revealing the palpable
inadequacies of U.S. programs to combat illicit flows of people and goods. One
of Talons of the Eagles inherent strengths is its insistence on a Latin American
perspective on major issues shaping hemispheric affairs. Smith thus offers
substantial insight into the pitfalls of the Washington Consensus economic model,
the effects of U.S. demand on the perpetuation of the drug trade cycle, and the
political and social ramifications of curtailing illicit labor flows from Mexico.
Smith presumes that, in the wake of the Cold War, the U.S. has achieved its longstanding goal of unrivaled supremacy in the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, the U.S.
actually seemed to attain hegemony by default. Smith contends that the end of
U.S.-Soviet rivalry has prompted the U.S. to view Latin America as less of a political
asset: while Latin Americans were seeking a new partnership with the United
States the United States was anticipating unilateral domination throughout the
Western Hemisphere (300). While the hemisphere had retained its economic
significance as a consumer of U.S. manufactured products and an absorber of U.S.
investment, Latin Americas capacity for political innovation had become limited by
careful cultivation of parochialism with which Washington hoped to package the
region. To substantiate his claim that the U.S. promotes its unconcealed will in the
Western Hemisphere, Smith alludes to the U.S.s 1989 invasion of Panama and the

1994 refugee operation in Haiti. Yet, Smith could be undermining his portrayal of
U.S. uncontrolled preponderance in the region through his perfectly plausible
portrayal of the War on Terror as a valuable, if unintended opportunity for Latin
American nations to explore unexpected policy alternatives. The rise of the pink
tide, skepticism over the neoliberal economic model, the increasing role of Brazil
as a global economic actor, the failure of the FTAA, and the forging of stronger trade
and diplomatic ties with China and the Middle East attest to Latin Americas
newfound ability to reassert its importance as a political and economic actor.
Furthermore, this line of thinking helps to establish how costly the distraction of Iraq
has been on Washingtons ability to plough a straight line in a habitat where the
region was provided with all sorts of options to diversify and pluralize its ties with
new players, be they slumbering candidates for superpower status, like India, or
rogue nations in the White Houses purview.
Washingtons War on Terror
Smith argues that the War on Terror has transformed the dynamics of the interAmerican relationship. It has recast the political status of Cuba, drug trafficking, and
illegal immigration as fundamental concerns of U.S. national security. The U.S.
largely has ignored Latin American opposition to the Iraq War, resulting in
institutionalized neglect of hemispheric concerns (320). Yet, Smith alleges that
Latin America merits high-level attention from the U.S. due to its geographical
proximity and status as a potential breeding ground for terrorists. He claims
perhaps overly dwells on the possibility that Latin America could provide a base
for terrorists seeking to launch assaults, that terrorist movements could arise from
within Latin America itself, and that the U.S. could be forced to divert valuable
resources to the region in the event of political or social upheaval. Smith suggests
that the U.S. should view its conduct of relations with Latin America as a matter of
authentic foreign policy (377). He nevertheless concedes that the relative
tranquility of the region has benefited U.S. political, economic, and national security
imperatives. He warns that continued U.S. neglect of Latin America could result in a
proliferation of terrorist activity throughout the Western Hemisphere, but he is
unconvincing in his claim that a real threat exists or is likely to develop. This is
perhaps the most disabling aspect of his analysis, and one might like to query the
author as to why he headed down this seeming dry gulch when Latin America, as a
new zone of fast-growing autonomous behavior, provided such rich grounds for
informed speculation.
No Easy Path to Ones Destiny
Smith additionally urges the region to turn to a strategy of collective solidarity in
order to obtain bargaining power that will offset U.S. influence in the region. He
suggests that the more unified the countries of the region, the greater their overall
bargaining power with the United States (414). Yet, his emphasis on continental
unity and the Bolivarian ideal of solidarity conflicts with an apparent hemispheric
trend toward greater transnational economic, migratory, and cultural flows (414).

Smith emphasizes long-term trends and transitions affecting U.S.-Latin American

affairs, analyzing the dynamics for continuity and change in the hemisphere. Here, a
more solid analysis of future strategy options for Latin America would have
served Talons of the Eagle well.
Despite its flaws, Talons of the Eagle nevertheless warrants a major place on the
bookshelves of university students genuinely interested in hemispheric affairs. It
offers a comprehensive examination of the history of regional relations, and Latin
Americanists will find Talons of the Eagle an indispensable tool for discussing the
fundamental characteristics of the inter-American relationship. The depth of analysis
Smith provides to explain the underlying dynamics of U.S.-Latin American affairs is
impressive and reveals an ability to weave scholarship with gentle advocacy. He
offers unique insight into the relationship between the U.S. and the hemisphere
through the integration of Latin American viewpoints on key topics of interest. The
newest edition ofTalons of the Eagle introduces a new generation of students to recent
issues that confront Latin American politics and society, and analyzes the realities of
inter-American affairs as shaped by the global War on Terror. Smith includes photos,
maps, political cartoons, diagrams, commentaries, and questions for further
discussion to guide and inform the committed reader. The index offers an extensive
list of worthy suggestions for further study.
Smith focuses on power distributions within the international system and the role of
national interests in crafting foreign policy to reveal trends in U.S.-Latin American
relations. He successfully argues that the U.S. always has sought to ensure its
political, economic, and ideological dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S.
historically may have altered its methods of involvement in Latin America, but its
fundamental foreign policy objectives have not changed with time. The author
anticipates that the U.S. will continue to utilize its hegemonic influence to secure
the perpetuation of its regional dominance and the maintenance of its narrowly
defined national interests. Though Smith tends to rely heavily on a realist
interpretation of the international system to inform his political claims, there is little
reason to believe that his assertions concerning U.S. influence in Latin America are
fundamentally incorrect.Talons of the Eagle seeks to focus on the character of the
international systems, on the distribution of power, on the perception and pursuit of
national interests, and on the resulting interaction between Latin America and the
United States (8). That Smith ultimately achieves most of his objectives cannot be
gainsaid.