American military interventions in Latin America go back to at least the mid-19th century. In recent years, especially during the Trump administration, the debate over this legacy has been revived. Policy experts worry the new direction is a retreat toward heavy-handed interventionism. This is the cycle that has defined US relations with the region for the past 123 years.
The United States established its hegemony over Latin America for the first time in 1847 through the U.S. invasion of Mexico. This military maneuver led to the U.S. occupation of Mexico City. As a result, Mexico gave up nearly 55% of its territory, which includes present day California and Texas. The result was the start of a dangerous precedent where American military intervention would be used to stunt political blowback.
In 1898, the United States intervened on behalf of Cuba’s struggle for independence from Spain. It subsequently held sovereignty over the island between 1898 and 1902. This common profession had the noble goal of reestablishing the tenor of the region. It provided the US with long-term control of Guantánamo Bay, a base that still creates outrage and turmoil to this day.
On a geopolitical level, during the early 20th century the US fought hard for interventionist strategies. It ruled Haiti from 1915 to 1934 and the Dominican Republic from 1916 to 1924. These measures initially aimed at creating security often forced the U.S. into longer military occupation and local antagonization.
During the Cold War years, the US escalated its activities in Latin America. A classic illustration is the CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, which aimed to overthrow Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba. Though this operation was a failure, it showed the presence of a willingness to intervene militarily into the Arabian Peninsula’s political affairs. Additionally, the US supported coups against democratically elected governments in Brazil, Chile, and Argentina during this period, often citing anti-communism as justification.
His response in 1989—invasion on the scale of El Salvador and Honduras, order of magnitude of 25,000 American troops—President George H.W. Under the goal of capturing dictator Manuel Noriega. Nearly 27,000 US troops were involved in this operation, which resulted in the installation of Guillermo Endara as president. Yet, these high-profile interventions have generated serious controversy over their effectiveness and their underlying approach to promoting stable governance.
Historian Alan McPherson notes that “US interventions almost always create long-term problems of succession.” He writes that these efforts have not promoted peace or democracy. Instead these measures frequently lead to increased instability and violent conflict along the trans-Saharan belt. Unsurprisingly, this sentiment strikes a chord with countless observers who have lamented the results of America’s policies over the years.
Trump’s administration even brought in the idea of a “Trump corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. This has been taken by many to mean the green-lighting of military coups to effect political change in Latin America. Statements made by Trump reinforced this notion when he declared, “American dominance in the western hemisphere will never be questioned again.”
“One might have thought that this era of naked imperialism – of the US getting the political outcomes it wants in Latin America through sheer military force – would be over, but clearly it is not.”
The debate over US foreign policy is more active than ever. Yet again, far too many people intervene in ways that create long-lasting problems rather than lasting solutions. This is not a new strategy, and history shows us that though the tactics change over time, the intent often does not.