U.S. Intervention and Revolution in Latin America

Intervention by the United States in foreign countries is not a new phenomenon to the world, especially to Latin America. During an age where the spread of communism was feared, Latin America was the most politically unstable and war torn. The effect of the United States’s backing of dictatorships would promote a imperialistic view of the U.S. on the Latin American people.
It could be said the the revolution was sparked in part due to the U.S promotion of military control in Latin American countries when they felt that any leader influenced by Marxist or communist ideals was a threat to the expansion of democracy. The Chilean example of the election of Salvador Allende illustrates how the U.S. deposed unconventional leaders. As Chasteen says, Allende was the candidate of the socialist-communist coalition and received about a third of the vote in the 1958 election. Again in 1964, “Allende ran and did even better, despite his opponent being bankrolled by the CIA. His popularity alarmed the U.S. State Department and made Chile a model of the Alliance for Progress aid program, but to no avail” [Chasteen Pg. 299].  In the end, the CIA advocated the overthrow of Allende by the Chilean army and was killed in the attack. This demonstrates how invested the U.S. government was in ousting any communist regime.  
Although military and dictatorial rule in Latin American countries, more specifically Mexico, Argentina, Chile, and Brazil, are well known in history, Central America had to be the most affected area thanks to unstable administrations, few agricultural exports, guerilla warfare, and utter poverty in the final years of the Cold War. U.S. intervention in this part of Latin America was relentless due to the lack of an established government. Of all the countries that suffered, El Salvador was hit the hardest, with a history of poverty, military and undemocratic control, the tiny country was bound to implode. Throughout the 1970’s, the Catholic church’s influence heightened and with that so did anticommunist sentiment toward the Archbishop Oscar Romero; he spoke against the army and in doing so caused the deaths of his clergy and he was gunned down during mass as mentioned in chapter nine by Chasteen. The death of the Archbishop spurred a revolution that would combat the Salvadoran army.
Following the deaths, the FMLN (Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front) was created by Salvadoran revolutionaries in response to the atrocities being committed by the country’s army, who were U.S. trained. The FMLN guerrillas were mainly in the countryside, backed by the poor country people, but were no match for the army. As mentioned by Chasteen, “One day in 1981, an elite U.S. trained battalion entered the tiny village of El Mozote and systematically slaughtered almost everybody there, hundreds of unarmed, unresisting men, women, and children. Ironically, their military intelligence was not very good: El Mozote, it turned out, was not a guerilla base at all. In fact, many of the families at El Mozote had recently converted to U.S. oriented evangelical Protestantism, and they favored  the government over the guerrillas” [Chasteen Pg. 311]. Just another example of how U.S intervention has fueled revolution in Latin American countries with horrendous results.
U.S. intervention could be to blame for sparking revolution throughout Latin America. However, one must keep in mind the history of the region and the struggle for peace in shifting power, and racial and economic problems. In trying to spread democracy in the Western hemisphere, the U.S did more damage than good, effects that some parts of Latin America continue to exhibit to this day

ARTICLES
Salvador Allende- http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/leftist-salvador-allende-elected-president-of-chile

El Mozote- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20675619

Image
https://americasouthandnorth.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/cb-cs.jpg?w=595