Valid enough point, given the date and the number of people that wound up being killed as an indirect consequence of our actions at that time. If I were to put the message into words it would be: “we have been the equivalent of 9/11 to other countries around the globe.” I would disagree that there is any moral equivalance there, but as far as consequences of our actions go, I suppose it is a point that should be considered.

One could ask what happened to “We are all Americans now.” But I think we know that. The French did not agree with us on Iraq, and we let them know who was and who was not an American. There was a great deal of unity that has been allowed to fall away not because of vital interests but because of simple diplomatic mismanagement. I believe that to be a great loss.

I’m not so sure that Gen. Pinochet’s reputation should be understood in this light. His career needs to be taken in context. Allende himself was a brutal Marxist who was clearly undertaking to effect a ruthless Communist dictatorship in Chile.

Allende was assisted in his aims by East Germany, who trained his secret police and trained terrorists who were responsible for bombings and assassinations and fierce repression of political dissent. Even after his overthrow, these subversive groups continued their violent activities well into the late 1980s. What was Pinochet supposed to do?

Gen. Pinochet convinced the military to engage a coup only after it was clear what Allende was aspiring toward. Pinochet’s methods were often brutal, but if he had not employed such methods the results could have been far worse. He spilled blood to avert an even bloodier civil war that could have left the country in ruins.

But instead, he he restored a semblence of prosperity — and eventually democracy — to his country. He probably can’t be held entirely guiltless, but the country is undoubtedly much better off than it would have been otherwise. For having rebuffed a Communist plot to reduce Chile under despotism, the Left of course will never forgive him.

Pinochet led a coup d’etat only after the Chilean congress asked him to do so, because Allende was rendering them impotent through tyranny.

What would Thrasymachus do, if he saw _his_ country coming under a Communist tyranny, and if he had the means under his command to stop it? Just wondering.

Pinochet was a military dictator who came to power in a bloody coup d’etat and ruled with an iron fist until he felt safe enough to relax his grip a bit. Par for the Latin American course, except that he survived his own relaxation of power. Perhaps that is a sign that there is greater hope for a temperate country like Chile (although we must set against it the manifest failures of Argentina, a country that once seemed to have every advantage) than for the tropical morasses that most Latin American countries are - Americans need only think of Mexico, Puerto Rico and the banana republics of Hispaniola and Central America that are repopulating the United States with their peonage.

Still, Pinochet saved Chile from Allende’s Communism and made it possible for Chile to become what is arguably the most successful and civilized country in Latin America today. One can give him credit for that while acknowledging that, yes, he was a Latin American caudillo who ruled by junta.

As to Mr. Auster’s larger point, presumably that all those lily-livered, scaredy-cat Froggies hate the United States and believe Americans are a greater force for evil in the world than al-Qaeda:
One should no more take Le Monde’s editorial tone as representative of what most Frenchmen think than one would take The New York Times’ editorial line as indicative of what most Americans think. I lived for a long time in France at various periods and, although French-speaking, never hid being American. I do not recall ever experiencing hostile anti-Americanism, even in Paris.

France and the United States are alike in one respect, and it is one that VFR posters often lament: there is an extraordinary disconnect between what ordinary people think and what ruling elites do. In the case of invading Iraq, French opposition was of two kinds. The lesser, most often found among the elite, was opposition to American power, even visceral anti-Americanism. The greater, based on worldliness and memories of such quagmires as Algeria, was opposition to invading Iraq because it would not ultimately solve Iraq’s problems and would exacerbate the problems of the Middle East. I fear those who opposed the invasion for the latter reasons may yet be proved right. HRS

Chile is the most economically successful country in South America, and the credit for that should probably go to the people who decided to replace Allende. If I were the American President who had to make the decision to support the coup or not, I would have made the same decision. Communism is a bad system.

At the same time, bloody tyranny is a bad system too. And that is what Pinochet instituted.

The pureness of our intentions does not let us get away with not studying the consequences of our actions. That is true for protestors of wars and foreign interventions. It is far more true for the supporters of such actions.

The high cost of our actions does not let us get away with not choosing the best course in a bad situation. Allende was playing host to Cuban insurgents, destroying the economy, destroying Chile’s democratic institutions and the rule of law, essentially instituting a Marxist dictatorship, all based on winning a plurality in the election. He would have made it another Cuba. Pinochet saved Chile. At a high cost.

Charming. Hopefully, we we’ll not have to worry about being annoyed for too long by obnoxious Tranzi Euro-leftsists like those at “Le Monde.” In a few short years, these little twits will have to answer to the Grand Mufti of Paris - a fate they absolutely deserve.

While the French are certainly the deserved objects of Carl’s schadenfreude, I can’t share the feeling. A Muslim-dominated France/Europe would be an inconceivable catastrophe for us as well, the end of European civilization. It’s like World War II: we need to try to save the French and other Europeans, even though they themselves don’t deserve it.

It was not just the anti-American leftists at Le Monde who posited a moral equivalence between September 11th and the Chilean coup of 30 years ago. The editors of the New York Times did the same thing, in an editorial published on September 11:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/opinion/11THU2.html

Can we get “payday loans” to take a hike?