When we explain such complex issues like militarism in Latin America with
cultural arguments, the discussion is over and the explanation becomes
circular: Latin American is underdeveloped (or palgued by military, or
whatever), because it is so...
This kind of reasoning, however, does not eliminate the fact
that before and after World War II many LAtin American dictatorships have
been supported, if not installed, by the United States (remember
"democrats" such as Somoza, Trujillo, Baby Doc, Castillo Armas, etc.). In
sum, Washington is not innocent in this tragedy. My counterfactual
argument is, in a nutshell, that in absence of American intervention
-with instruments such as SOA- there had been less military dictatorships
in Latin America, especially in the 1970s. Had these dictatorships been
absent without American intervention? I do not think so.
To blame the USA for all of LAtin American disgraces is to
exaggerate a bit. But to argue that the USA is completely innocent in this
matter shows a monumental lack of historical knowledge of Inter-American
relations. History is there, cannot be changed and clearly shows that the US
interventionist record in Latin America is far from immaculate.
Only a blinding bad consciousness could deny it.