This only looks at failures as it is very hard to attribute success in such cases. For example you list North Korea as a failure, but American involvement there is the only reason why South Korea exists and we don’t have one giant North Korea.
The fact of the matter is that the Cold War was won, and the CIA was a major part of it. You could analyze every coup that was started in Latin America as a mistake, but you can’t really say what was the alternative
> but American involvement there is the only reason why South Korea exists and we don’t have one giant North Korea.
True, but nobody knows how a unified communist Korea would have turned out. Without a direct threat at their border and an easy bad gut to point the finger at, they might have progressively opened up à la Vietnam (the closest comparison we have).
Could be, although Vietnam was fundamentally different than North Korea. Even if you compare Korea to Vietnam, it is highly unlikely the economic situation had been similar to South Korea.
Anyway this is all alternate history, just as the discussions in GP. How could we say something is a failure when we have no real way of understanding its effects
The counterfactual scenarios about this are interesting to think about. NK dictators base the state identity and national grit pretty much solely on that conflict. Most asian communist countries without the frozen conflict and perpatual state of war opened up on their own.
(And of course the division of Korea was a US idea to begin with...)
The fact of the matter is that the Cold War was won, and the CIA was a major part of it. You could analyze every coup that was started in Latin America as a mistake, but you can’t really say what was the alternative