Filed with 60.3.1 - Foreign Policy · Related: 60.13 Wars · Political Philosophy (MOC)

Question

Are the countries that the U.S. did intervene turn out better than the ones that the U.S. didn’t or failed?

Was it worth it?

Evaluating whether U.S. interventions have been “helpful” or “successful” is complex, as the outcomes often fall into two distinct buckets: immediate prosperity vs. long-term institutional instability.
Using the current data from early 2026, we can analyze the “Return on Intervention” based on the two metrics you requested.

Summary Analysis of Outcomes (2026)

---

Was it Helpful? (The Pros and Cons)

1. The Economic Argument: “A Mixed Bag of Ruin and Remedy”

The data suggests that successful U.S. interventions often paved the way for market-oriented reforms that led to higher wealth.

• The Success: Chile is the prime example. Despite the brutal nature of the 1973 coup, the subsequent economic liberalization (the “Chilean Miracle”) turned it into the wealthiest major economy in South America.
• The Failure: In Guatemala and Honduras, interventions were often driven by corporate interests (like the fruit companies). These did not result in a “miracle” but rather in decades of internal corruption and high poverty rates that persist today.

2. The Freedom Argument: “The Dictatorship Trap”

Most U.S. interventions in the Cold War replaced a leftist leader with a right-wing military dictator.

• Short-Term: Freedom plummeted immediately following intervention (e.g., the “Dirty War” in Argentina).
• Long-Term: Paradoxically, the countries where the U.S. successfully intervened eventually transitioned back to democracy and now have very high Freedom Scores (Argentina 85, Panama 83).
• The Comparison: Meanwhile, the countries where the U.S. failed to intervene (Cuba, Nicaragua) have never transitioned back and remain under total autocratic control.

3. The 2026 Venezuela Factor

The strike and capture of Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, has sparked a massive debate. Proponents argue it is the only way to save a collapsing nation, while critics argue it will lead to a “nation-building” quagmire. Early 2026 analysis suggests that while the “dictatorship” was successfully removed, the “success” in terms of freedom and wealth will take years to manifest.

---

The Final Verdict

If “success” is defined by avoiding the long-term autocratic stagnation seen in Cuba and Nicaragua, then the interventions were largely successful. However, the data also shows that the best outcomes in the region (Uruguay and Costa Rica) occurred where the U.S. did not intervene at all, suggesting that while intervention is better than an entrenched communist dictatorship, internal democratic growth is the superior path.

Research

Argentina

U.S. history in Argentina is characterized by a “seesaw” relationship. Unlike some of its neighbors, Argentina was often a regional rival to the U.S., viewing itself as a natural leader of South America However, the most significant era of intervention was during the Cold War.

1. The Perón Era (1940s–1950s): Ideological Rivalry

During World War II, Argentina remained neutral for most of the conflict, which infuriated the U.S. government. In 1946, the U.S. attempted to influence Argentina’s election by releasing the “Blue Book,” which accused candidate Juan Perón of Nazi sympathies

• Result: The move backfired Perón used it to stoke nationalism with the slogan “Braden o Perón” (referring to the U.S. Ambassador), won the election, and established a populist-socialist legacy that still dominates Argentine politics today

2. The 1976 Coup and the “Dirty War” (Successful Intervention)

In 1976, the military overthrew Isabel Perón Initially, the U.S. (under Secretary of State Henry Kissinger) supported the junta as a bulwark against communism

• Operation Condor: Argentina was a key player in this U.S.-backed campaign of state terror across South America to hunt down and “disappear” leftists.
• The Shift: Under President Jimmy Carter (1977), the U.S. pivoted sharply toward human rights The U.S. passed the Humphrey-Kennedy Amendment, cutting off all military aid and arms sales to the junta due to the “disappearance” of an estimated 30,000 citizens

3. The Falklands War (1982): A Breach of Trust

When Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), they expected U.S. support under the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. Instead, the U.S. provided intelligence and logistical support to the United Kingdom.

• Outcome: This was seen as a massive betrayal by the Argentine military and contributed to the junta’s collapse in 1983.

4. The 1990s: “Carnal Relations”9

Under President Carlos Menem, Argentina abandoned its “third-way” non-alignment and became the most pro-U.S. nation in the region.

• Status: In 1998, the U.S. designated Argentina as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA), a status it still holds today

---

5. Present Day (2025–2026): The Milei-Trump Alliance11

As of early 2026, the relationship has reached a new peak of ideological alignment. Following Javier Milei’s election and his pivot toward radical free-market capitalism, the U.S.-Argentina bond has shifted from “cautious” to “strategic partnership.”12

Historical Note: Argentina is one of the few countries that “successfully” transitioned from a U.S.-backed dictatorship (1976–83) to a high-freedom democracy (Freedom Score: 85) without losing its fundamental institutional independence.

Bolivia

U.S. history in Bolivia is marked by a definitive “Successful Intervention” in 1971, followed by a long period of tension during the socialist era of Evo Morales.
The 1971 coup is the clearest example of U.S. regime change in Bolivia. The Nixon administration, fearing that President Juan José Torres was leading the country toward communism, authorized “coup money” (covert funding) to support General Hugo Banzer The intervention was successful; Torres was ousted, and Banzer established a right-wing military dictatorship that lasted until 1978.2

Understanding the Bolivia Context

1. The 1971 Intervention

Declassified documents show the CIA funneled funds to military officers to “cement relations” and encourage the coup against Torres Banzer’s subsequent regime was one of the most repressive in Bolivian history (thousands arrested and tortured), but he remains a complex figure because he later returned to power as a democratically elected president in 1997.4

2. The War on Drugs Era

From the 1980s through the early 2000s, U.S. intervention shifted from “regime change” to “coca eradication.” The U.S. essentially dictated Bolivian security policy to fight cocaine production, which created massive resentment among indigenous farmers (cocaleros)

3. The Morales Era and 2019

The rise of Evo Morales (a former coca farmer) in 2006 marked a complete break from U.S. influence. Morales expelled the U.S. Ambassador in 2008.6 In 2019, Morales resigned under military pressure following a disputed election While Morales called this a “U.S.-backed coup,” the U.S. did not directly engineer his removal in the way it did in 1971; rather, it supported the OAS findings of fraud and recognized the interim government. However, Morales’s party (MAS) returned to power just one year later, which is why Bolivia remains a “Partly Free” state with a socialist-leaning government today

Summary Analysis

Bolivia represents a “middle ground” in this data. It is significantly freer and wealthier than the “Failed Intervention” states like Cuba or Venezuela, but it has not achieved the high-income stability of Chile or Panama. Its “Partly Free” status (65) reflects ongoing political polarization and a judiciary that is often seen as a tool of the ruling party
Would you like to see a comparison of how China’s investments in these countries (specifically in Bolivia’s lithium) have changed their relationship with the U.S. over the last year?

El Salvador

U.S. history in El Salvador represents a specific type of “Successful Intervention.” Unlike Chile or Argentina, where the U.S. backed the overthrow of an existing government, in El Salvador, the U.S. spent billions to prevent a regime change by socialist rebels (the FMLN) during a 12-year civil war (1980–1992).

---

The El Salvador Context: “Preventative” Intervention

The U.S. intervention in El Salvador is often cited as the “Reverse Nicaragua.” While the U.S. failed to stop the socialist revolution in Nicaragua, it successfully propped up the Salvadoran government to ensure the FMLN rebels did not take power.

1. The $1 Million-a-Day War

During the 1980s, El Salvador was the third-largest recipient of U.S. aid globally (after Israel and Egypt). The Reagan administration viewed El Salvador as the “line in the sand” against Soviet and Cuban influence This funding was “successful” in that the government did not fall, but it came at a high cost: 85% of civilian deaths in the war were attributed to the U.S.-backed military and their death squads.

2. The Migration Legacy

The violence of the intervention era triggered a massive diaspora. Hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans fled to the U.S., leading to the formation of gangs like MS-13 in Los Angeles When the U.S. began mass deportations in the late 1990s, these gang structures were exported back to El Salvador, creating the security crisis that defines the country today.

3. The Bukele Era (Present Day 2026)

Today, El Salvador is undergoing a radical shift under Nayib Bukele. While he has dramatically lowered the crime rate, his “State of Exception” has seen El Salvador’s Freedom Score drop significantly (from the 50s down to 47) The U.S. relationship is currently a mix of criticism over human rights and cooperation on migration, with the 2026 data reflecting a country that is economically stable but politically tightening.

Summary Comparison

In terms of “Freedom vs. Wealth,” El Salvador sits in a similar tier to Guatemala. Both were successful U.S. interventions intended to stop communism, and both have struggled with long-term institutional stability and corruption compared to the Southern Cone nations (Chile, Argentina) or the “Non-Intervened” democracies (Uruguay, Costa Rica).
Would you like to explore the history of Nicaragua next to see exactly why the U.S. intervention there is classified as a “Failure” compared to El Salvador?

Ecuador

In the context of U.S. regime change, Ecuador is classified as a Successful Intervention due to the events of the early 1960s. Similar to the interventions in Brazil and Chile, the U.S. was motivated by “anti-Castro” sentiment and a desire to prevent any South American government from aligning with the Soviet bloc.

The 1963 Intervention in Ecuador

In 1961, President José María Velasco Ibarra was ousted by the military, and his Vice President, Carlos Julio Arosemena Monroy, took power Although Arosemena initially had U.S. support, he refused to break diplomatic ties with Cuba and publicly criticized U.S. foreign policy

• The Action: The CIA conducted a multi-year campaign to destabilize Arosemena, which included funding anti-communist labor unions and spreading propaganda.
• The Result: In July 1963, a military junta overthrew Arosemena The new junta immediately outlawed the Communist Party, broke ties with Cuba, and received significant financial backing from USAID

---

Observations on Ecuador (2026)

• Current Instability: Ecuador’s Freedom Score has slipped recently (now at 65) This is largely due to an unprecedented surge in organized crime violence and a series of “States of Exception” declared by the government to combat cartels.
• The “Milei Effect”: Much like Argentina, Ecuador’s current leadership (President Daniel Noboa) has pivoted toward a very close strategic and economic alliance with the U.S. in early 2026, seeking a reciprocal trade agreement to stabilize its economy.
• The Comparison: Compared to the other “Successful Intervention” nations, Ecuador sits in the middle tier—wealthier and freer than Guatemala or Bolivia, but lagging far behind the institutional stability of Chile or Uruguay.

Summary Analysis of the Tiers

1. High Stability (Intervened or Not): Chile, Argentina, Panama, Uruguay, and Costa Rica all have Freedom Scores above 80.
2. Mid-Tier Instability: Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, and El Salvador represent countries where democratic institutions are present but remain under pressure from either populist movements or organized crime.
3. The “Not Free” Zone: Only the countries where the U.S. failed to change the regime (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela) remain in the “Not Free” category with the lowest regional GDPs.

Peru

The history of U.S. relations with Peru provides a fascinating example of “Non-Intervention” during a period when the U.S. was actively ousting similar regimes elsewhere.

The 1968 Peru Case: Why the U.S. Stayed Out

In 1968, General Juan Velasco Alvarado led a military coup and established a leftist, highly nationalistic government. He immediately seized the assets of the U.S.-owned International Petroleum Company (IPC) and eventually established diplomatic and military ties with the Soviet Union.
While this was exactly the kind of behavior that triggered U.S. interventions in Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973), the Nixon administration chose not to intervene for several reasons:

• Avoidance of “Another Cuba”: U.S. officials feared that a hardline stance would radicalize Velasco further and push Peru into a permanent Soviet alliance.
• Geopolitical Focus: The U.S. was heavily preoccupied with the Vietnam War and did not want to open a second diplomatic front in the Andes.
• Regional Backlash: Intervening against a military junta that had significant domestic support for its land reforms would have poisoned U.S. relations with the rest of South America.
  Instead of a coup, the U.S. used “economic pressure” and the withdrawal of aid, but Velasco remained in power until he was ousted by an internal military shift in 1975.

---

Key Takeaways from the Updated Data

• The Peru vs. Chile Comparison: Peru (Non-Intervention) and Chile (Intervention) followed very different paths. While Peru avoided the immediate violence of a U.S.-backed coup in the 60s/70s, it also missed the rapid economic liberalization that occurred in Chile. Today, Chile is significantly wealthier (~$30k vs. ~$19.5k) and holds a much higher Freedom Score (94 vs. 67).
• The “Failed Intervention” Trap: The three countries where the U.S. tried and failed to change the regime (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela) remain the most impoverished and least free nations on the list. This suggests that a “failed” intervention often leads to a defensive consolidation of power by the ruling regime, resulting in long-term autocracy.
• Institutional Strength: The highest scores in the region still belong to the two nations that stayed out of the “regime change cycle” entirely—Uruguay and Costa Rica. Their success suggests that the absence of external interference, combined with strong internal democratic traditions, is the most consistent recipe for prosperity.

Grenada and Honduras

The addition of Grenada and Honduras helps illustrate the two extreme ends of “successful” U.S. interventions. In Grenada, a direct military invasion led to one of the most stable democracies in the Caribbean. In Honduras, a century of repeated interventions to protect economic interests (the “Banana Wars”) and the 1963 coup left a legacy of institutional weakness.

---

Comparative Analysis of the New Data

1. The Success of Grenada (1983)

Operation Urgent Fury is often considered the “cleanest” U.S. intervention. By removing the Revolutionary Military Council quickly and returning the country to a parliamentary system, the U.S. paved the way for Grenada to become one of the freest nations in the region today (Score: 89). Its wealth is significantly higher than other Caribbean nations that experienced internal socialist revolutions.

2. The Honduras Paradox

Honduras experienced the most “quantity” of U.S. intervention over the last 100 years. However, because these interventions were often aimed at protecting specific U.S. corporate interests (like United Fruit) rather than building local democratic institutions, the country remains “Partly Free” and the poorest on the “Successful Intervention” list ($8.2k).

3. Peru: The Middle Path

By not intervening in Peru’s 1968 leftist military coup, the U.S. avoided a violent clash, but Peru also missed the “shock therapy” economic reforms that drove the wealth of Chile. Today, Peru is remarkably average for the region—neither an autocratic failure like Cuba nor a high-income success like Chile.

Final Summary

• The “Gold Standard”: Non-intervened democracies (Uruguay, Costa Rica) remain the overall leaders in freedom.
• The “Intervention Highs”: When intervention is followed by a commitment to democratic institutions (Chile, Panama, Grenada), the countries often reach high-income status.
• The “Intervention Lows”: When intervention is purely tactical or military-focused (Guatemala, Honduras), the countries often fall into a cycle of poverty and “Partly Free” status.
• The “Resistance” Trap: Every single nation that successfully resisted a U.S. regime change (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela) currently sits in the “Not Free” category with the lowest GDP per capita.