In Perspective: US Cold War foreign policy and the death of Pinochet, and the GWOT

Pinochet
From BBC News:

Chile's former military leader Augusto Pinochet has died in hospital aged 91.

Pinochet assumed power on Sept. 11, 1973, in a bloody coup supported by the United States that toppled the [democratically] elected government of Salvador Allende, a Marxist who had pledged to lead his country "down the democratic road to socialism."

First as head of a four-man military junta and then as president, Pinochet served until 1990, leaving a legacy of abuse that took successive governments years to catalogue. According to a government report that included testimony from more than 30,000 people, his government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973.

It seems that many throughout the Americas still have the ignorance of the Cold War. (BBC News)

Despite his human rights record, many Chileans loved him and said he saved the country from Marxism.

And

His supporters argue, as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said, that Pinochet "saved Chile for democracy".

They contend that he stepped in when the country was on the verge of chaos that could have led to a Communist take-over and alignment with the Soviet Union.

More like 'saved Chile from democracy'. Anyone ever wonder if he was the one who instigated much of that chaos? Thatcher, as many know, was not too much of a friend of the people, so she shouldn't even talk about democracy, especially when saying that brutal dictatorship is better than democracy. Pinochet cheated the Chilean people by stealing their money, killing and torturing, trampling on human rights, and basically ransacking the government and social structure.

In all irony, Pinochet died on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights' 50th anniversary.

Cold War
Some of these anti-Communist diplomatic maneuvers used by the United States during the Cold War era were mentioned in the essay I posted on this blog about the Monroe Doctrine:

Throughout the early 20th century, the U.S. sometimes questionably created regime changes in Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and other nations, as well as occupying or invading (and many times running or controlling in some way) Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic, and El Salvador, among others. In addition, the CIA and other clandestine agencies also interfered with many Latin American nations from the 1950s through the 1980s (Rosenfelder; Wikipedia). Many of these interferences, including regime changes, the establishing of puppet governments, assassinations, occupations, and embargoes, were done in the climate of fear of communism that encapsulated the Cold War, some of which the legality is disputed and the “claim of self-defense” had “no legal basis” (Hilaire 96). Many times regimes were changed from left-leaning or even moderate democracies or republics to military dictatorships, because of the fear that the democracies or republics could turn to communism.

Chile was one of the nations the US undeniably supported, that is, during the reign of Pinochet.

Counterpoints
On an Oxblog post made by conservative-leaning David Adesnik, I commented

David, you know that the United States was a major force that got Pinochet into power and kept him there, right? (Oh, that Kissinger...) Yes, and he obviously wasn't too great for the Chilean economy; replacing democratically-elected leaders with a coup backed by the US was all too widespread and common during the Cold War.

In a civil and direct response, the author replied

Clearthought, I'm glad you pointed out Kissinger's role in Pinochet's rise to power. An important reminder of what "realism" in foreign policy is all about.

With regard to replacing elected governments with dictatorships during the Cold War, even one instance counts in my book as "all too common", but actually there weren't that many.

Off hand, I can think of Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954 and Chile in 1973. There were also instances in which we didn't do enought to prevent democratic governments from falling to a coup d'etat or other assault.

But the real thing we did is stand by and not complain too much about all of the dictators we chose to collaborate with. Was that the best way to prevent Soviet expansion? I don't think so.

And now we face the same question today. Should we push hard for democracy in the Middle East, or focus on stabilizing pro-Western dictatorships. Strangely, many of those who think we shouldn't have befriended dictators during the Cold War are now calling for exactly that approach to the War on Terror.

"War on terror"
The final thought he presented in Adesnik's reply comment is one to ponder: how are US policy support of governments during the Cold War different than that of this "war on terror" (see this post). One point is that the Cold War was an era, it had an inevitable ending and, although it was not clearly set out the objectives of the War, there was a start and finish to the United States-Soviet Union conflict. In this "war on terror", there is no real start and finish. There has pretty much always been terror; there will always be terror. It's part of our existence, though one may argue the civility of such existence. The "war on terror", like the "war on drugs", is only a metaphorical war, the target is not concrete, and even less is the objective. It is a shame the media did not challenge the wording of the politically-charged words "war on terror" soon after their post-9/11 existence, now this "war" is imprinted into history. As Juan Cole noted in an article for Foreign Policy republished here.

'The war on terror has no end.'

That's the plan. The Bush administration has defined the struggle vaguely precisely so that it can't end; President Bush clearly enjoys the prerogatives of being a war president.

So the administration has expanded the goals and targets of this war from one group or geographical area to another.

If the "war on terror" is indeed all these things, then it could drag on for decades. More likely, the American public will not tolerate such a costly grab bag of initiatives for much longer.

If there is no major attack in the United States, pressure will build on Washington to stop fiddling with the politics of Kandahar and Ramadi, much less those of Damascus and Tehran. At some point, the American public will have to choose between paying for Bush's ongoing wars and Medicare. And that will be the true end of the war on terror.

As far as the popular counter argument about the GWOT and the "clash of civilizations" between the US and Islam, Cole cleans that up too.

'9-11 was a clash of civilizations.'

False. The notion that Muslims hate the West for its way of life is simply wrong, and 9-11 hasn't changed that.

The exhaustive World Values Survey found that more than 90% of respondents in much of the Muslim world endorsed democracy as the best form of government.

If it is not a clash of civilizations, what is it? It is a clash over policy.

The bloody U.S. occupation of Iraq has now created another point of tension: The Muslim world does not believe that Iraq will be better off because of the U.S. intervention.

Autonomy and national independence appear to be part of what Muslims mean by "democracy," and they consider Western interventions in Muslim affairs a betrayal of democratic ideals. Sept. 11 and the American response to it have deepened the rift over policy, but they haven't created a clash of civilizations.