U.S. Military Interventions in Latin America
Each Presidential Administration from Eisenhower to Obama is assigned a number. Throughout the map, you will see each intervention tagged with a number that corresponds to the presidential administration that the intervention occurred under:
It starts with The School of the Americas:
And then the interventions begin.
âSome common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions:
First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian âcollateral damage.â War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure ⊠The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as âaccidentalâ or âunavoidableâ.
Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of âfreedomâ and âdemocracy,â nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites ⊠The U.S. was not defending âfreedomâ but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorshipâsuch as in Grenada or Panamaâthey did so in a way that prevented the countryâs people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.
Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as âterrorism,â âatrocities against civilians,â or âethnic cleansing,â but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to âendâ a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washingtonâs double standard maintains that an U.S. allyâs action by definition âdefensive,â but that an enemyâs retaliation is by definition âoffensive.â
Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into âfriendsâ and âfoes,â and takes one side against another.
Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.
Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power.â
Words (ZoltĂĄn Grossman, Faculty of Geography & Native Studies, Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington)
More resources about U.S. Intervention (worldwide):
âHistoy of U.S. Interventionâ by NNOMY
âAmericaâs Third World Warâ by John Stockwell/NNOMY
âU.S. Interventions in the Middle Eastâ by Information Clearing House
âA Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Presentâ by William Blum
