George,

You said:

“In a desperate civil war, when one side is trying to impose a communist dictatorship by force, killing those who seek to enslave you is not only justified, but laudable.”

That’s a mighty slippery slope, and a very broad statement, which can cover a multitude of sins. Does “killing those who seek to enslave you” include unarmed enemies who are prisoners, and no longer resisting ? Do these enemies get any kind of due process, or are they shot out of hand ?

I recognize that in a “desperate civil war” that there are times when people may wind up shot out of hand (I’m thinking of both sides in Spain in 1936). Such practices make civil wars a good deal more desperate.

As for Pinochet, a lot of people (including me) would agree with you that the Allende government was bad news. A lot of people would probably agree with you that an end to the Allende regime was a good thing (even if it took a coup to do it) and that, in general, Pinochet’s later economic policies were the correct medicine for that country’s problems; and that he restored democracy on a better basis than previously existing. (I’d be less than candid if I didn’t count myself in this camp).

But too, too many people died after Pinochet’s coup — most of them after there was no question of any challenge to his regime. The memory of all that death will probably last longer than the memory of any good that he did, and will probably political hobble the political right in Chile for years. Pinochet did some good things, it’s true. But he did plenty of bad ones too.

Personally, I think as long as enemies are in arms, one should fight them with any and all available means, but once they’ve ceased resistance and surrendered, they should be, as Lincoln said in another context, let up easy.