> Failure of an operation does not mean the ideas behind it were incorrect.

Who's talking about failure?

> the analysis was correct but the execution botched

Are you willing to say this about all items on this page from 1951 - 1975? I haven't looked at it in-depth, but here's literally the first thing I scrolled onto, Bolivia 1971

> The U.S. government supported the 1971 coup led by General Hugo Banzer that toppled President Juan José Torres of Bolivia. Torres had displeased Washington by convening an "Asamblea del Pueblo" (People's Assembly or Popular Assembly), in which representatives of specific proletarian sectors of society were represented (miners, unionized teachers, students, peasants), and more generally by leading the country in what was perceived as a left wing direction. Banzer hatched a bloody military uprising starting on August 18, 1971 that succeeded in taking the reigns of power by August 22, 1971. After Banzer took power, the U.S. provided extensive military and other aid to the Banzer dictatorship as Banzer cracked down on freedom of speech and dissent, tortured thousands, "disappeared" and murdered hundreds, and closed labor unions and the universities. Torres, who had fled Bolivia, was kidnapped and assassinated in 1976 as part of Operation Condor, the US-supported campaign of political repression and state terrorism by South American right-wing dictators.

Yes, that doesn't invalidate everything he writes, of course. It just means he leaves all the stuff out that a person capable of being complicit in such things cannot be able to do, so it should absolutely be taken with a huge grain of salt, like dating advice from someone who might be a highly intelligent and charming sociopath.

"Botched execution", that's like saying a robbery was just the attempt to give a person a hug gone wrong. Yeah, maybe they didn't want to end up shooting the whole family including the children and a bunch of bystanders, maybe they "just" wanted to kill the father, knock the mother out, and run away with the purse. That's the "mistakes" they're making, it's a very vulgar euphemism in light of what it describes.

From what you quoted this looks like a reasonably executed operation. I don't see any blatant failures here. You might disagree with the goals and outcomes, but I expect the result was close to what US government expected (pro-US power, weakened region). US supports US interests, that's basically the only criteria and always was. Don't conflate actual goals with the justifications (human rights, freedom of speech, etc) government uses to convince own population.

> You might disagree with the goals and outcomes, but

...they don't? Yes, naturally, or they wouldn't be doing that stuff. And you might disagree with my assessment, but I don't, that's why I made it.

> US supports US interests

That's a abstraction so simplified it says nothing at all.

> pro-US power, weakened region

There's a lot of murdered people included in that. Regions don't get weakened, people get killed. Euphemisms are a powerful drug.

> Don't conflate actual goals with the justifications (human rights, freedom of speech, etc) government uses to convince own population.

I simply "disagree with their goals" (like I "disagree with the goals of Adolf Hitler"), not because they lie about them. (on the topic of thinking, not having several "truths" to keep track of really helps with that)

There is a reason these things are used as justifications in the exactly the same way a scammer will talk about gain and not loss. The fact that the scammer actually intends to scam doesn't make it any better. That they don't actually WANT to do anything good makes it worse.

If the US population the US government derives its sole legitimation from knew half of what is done in their name, to serve very, very narrow interests within the US, not theirs, they would be furious.

You're conflating all of that under "US supporting US interests", and for that end, the US has to lie to itself.