Overthrow

I will not repeat the many excellent comments here except that Kinzer writes very well, making the read fascinating and factually solid. Other points:I think Kinzer made it fairly clear that the deposed leaders were not necessarily great or without flaws. The point is that when we went into these countries and replaced their democratically elected leaders with our puppet leaders, most of them turned out to be difficult to overthrow despots and tyrants. This left the fledgling democracies no chance to learn whether that elected official was good or bad, and gain more experience and time to develop their political parties and election processes. Instead, it repeatedly developed an environment where the only groups that could overthrow those puppets were fanatics and zealots, who grew out of the resentment of the American interference and the suffering of the country under quasi American rule. Besides, who are we to point fingers at the less than perfect elected leaders of other countries?The economic aspects of the overthrows were clearly an essential part of the pattern. However Kinzer stresses that the politicians had their own geo-political reasons for stepping in - often using the nationalization of companies as an excuse to hide their motives. The nationalization process is often misunderstood and Kinzer did a very good job of pointing out this rarely had much to do with anything but mild socialism. Instead, it was a response to the centuries of imperialism that allowed developed countries to take over so much of the underdeveloped world - almost exclusively those that had valuable resources to develop. During that phase, many companies became international power houses by developing those resources and selling them - with minimal compensation to the country whose economic futures were being plundered. Iran in '53 was looking at the incredible profits of the companies who developed the oil industries, yet hardly met their agreed payments to the country for being allowed to get rich off the resources they were given access to.This is still happening with globalization. Multinational corporations go into small countries with some agreement to have access to the resources, including cheap labor, and few restrictions on how they treat the employees, environment or invest some of the profit money in the country to help it gain it's own economic footing. It has been mentioned that countries operate on their own self-interest. They have reason to operate on enlightened self interest and do so far more than the corporations. Many figured this out and have formed coalitions to fight it.This book is important information Americans need to understand, in order to grasp the foreign policy deceptions that have been foisted on us by our government and the high profit media. James Pfiffner, professor of poli-sci at George Mason Univ, addressed presidential lying in a `99 essay (Presidential Studies Quarterly). He identified a hierarchy of presidential lying, some of which he considers justifiable:-Lying about personal matters that do not affect national policy or security. [Duh?]-Lying to foreign governments can be a necessary element of diplomacy.-Lying about matters of national security (Eisenhower denying U-2 flights over USSR)National security is where Pfiffner finds the worst errors because they are "lies of policy deception". The president says he is doing one thing, while in fact, the military, CIA, NSA or other agencies are doing something else. This is where he nails the issue for me:These lies are inexcusable because they deceive "the public about the direction of government policy" and deny voters the opportunity "to make an informed choice [which] undermines the premise of the democratic process". His examples are Johnson's escalation of the VN war and the Gulf of Tonkin deceptions. Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia (14 months), and Reagan's lies about Iran/Contra.We need to develop the awareness in American voters about what has been done in our names, with our tax money; while being deceived about the real reasons - or even that we were doing it covertly- so we could not vote or contact our representatives. A variation of taxation without representation, let alone ignoring the grassroots American conviction that we don't support interfering with other countries governments.Kinzer's book is an excellent text for this enlightenment. I also consider it essential for dissemination on a much wider scale.

Great book, nicely written.

In a great introduction the author formulates the argument that the US foreign policy, developed and well established over a hundred years, the pattern of "regime change". Two factors launching pattern; a) threat to the interests of US corporations and b) fit into the current ideology / mission of the United States (hegemony, the fight against communism, the struggle for freedom and human rights).The structure of the book, in other words the US policy of "regime change" in three acts:1) THE IMPERIAL ERAWhen Americans deposed regimes more or less openly. Hawaje, The Spanish-American War, Philippines, Nicaragua and Honduras.2) COVERT ACTION“During the Cold War, any direct American intervention risked provoking a reaction from the Soviets, possibly a cataclysmic one. To adjust to this new reality, the United States began using a more subtle technique, the clandestine coup d’etat, to depose foreign governments. In Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Chile, diplomats and intelligence agents replaced generals as the instruments of American intervention.”3) INVASIONS“By the end of the twentieth century, it had become more difficult for Americans to stage coups because foreign leaders had learned how to resist them. Coups had also become unnecessary.That left it free to return to its habit of landing troops on foreign shores. Both of the small countries Americans invaded in the 1980s, Grenada and Panama, are in what the United States has traditionally considered its sphere of influence, and both were already in turmoil when American troops landed. The two invasions that came later, in Afghanistan and Iraq, were far larger in scale and historical importance.”The current mission (ideology) + corporate interests (which identifies the US policy) legitimized the US authorities (in their opinion) to interference (open or hidden) in the politics of other countries.The author quite meticulously describes the different cases of "regime change". Each chapter ends with a summary with a description of the fate of countries; victims of the policy of "regime change".The book is very informational.

Good

He iniciado su lectura, y hasta este momento lo encuentro imparcial

Kinzer has probed the many instances of US/CIA/Military involvements in overthrowing democratically elected leaders around the world because they didn't like their politics or their desire to own their own natural resources.

Uma série de casos acerca da dominação político-econômica estadunidense em todo mundo, fartamente documentado. Do Ocidente ao Oriente, a investida desta dominação apenas visa à consolidação do poderio hegemônico dos EUA, sem piedade mas municiado com muito cinismo, muita chantagem e grande dose de lawfare. No caso do Brasil, também mencionado no livro, é assustadora a sua presente atualização.

Amazing book on American collective psyche that has enabled regime change in vast parts of the world. The author is well versed in describing invasions and coup d'etats in an engaging an interesting manner. This should be required reading for any aspiring diplomat, as it showcases very eloquently the downsides of regime change and how it has actually hurt American security instead of enabling it.If you have any interest in American foreign policy over the last hundred years do yourself a favor and get this, you will have a better way of interpreting American diplomacy and have a deeper grasp on modern conflicts around the world, especially the middle east and Latin America.