There was much rejoicing in the halls of the left at a recent decision by the Chilean Supreme Court stripping former President Augusto Pinochet of his immunity from prosecution. This is, of course, a great irony: without the efforts of the same Pinochet who they now seek to prosecute, it is doubtful if there would even be a Chilean Supreme Court today.

One thing that constantly amazes me about the modern left is its ability to blithely justify the crimes of Communist dictators, many of whom murdered millions of people, while, at the same time, it screams until it is blue in the face about the alleged “crimes” of General Pinochet who, at the most, is responsible for the deaths of three thousand people many of whom would, had they gotten their way, happily murdered tens of thousands (and perhaps millions) had Salvador Allende achieved his dream of creating a Communist state in Chile.

Pinochet did what was required by the situation, and exactly nothing more. To say otherwise is to fail to understand the dangers inherent in the situation that existed in Chile on September 11th, 1973.

Let us imagine the same events unfolding in our own country. Suppose that the Republican Party split into two while a still-united Democratic Party veered off to the radical left. In the next Presidential election, the ultra-leftist Democrat candidate wins 36% of the vote, while the two Republican candidates win 35% and 28% of the vote respectively. No majority in the Electoral College is achieved so the House of Representatives must elect the President.

The Congress (where the Republicans retain a majority) reluctantly agrees to make the ultra-leftist Democrat the President on the condition that he agrees to maintain constitutional rule. The Democrat accepts and then, upon the assumption of the Presidency, he immediately begins to subvert constitutional rule. His economic policies cause the nation to suffer inflation at an annualized rate of 140% during his second year in office. He “nationalizes” companies by using extra-legal means to seize them. New Democratic Party militias are formed and armed with illegal weapons imported from China. His Administration refuses to enforce judicial decisions against its own supporters. The President then begins reorganizing the armed forces in an effort to ensure its personal political loyalty to him.

What would the American people need to do in such a situation? One can hardly say, “Wait until the next election,” because it seems to be fairly clear that, when Party militias are running around with Chinese-made Assault Rifles and the President refuses to enforce the laws, that there isn’t going to be a “next election” or, at the very least, not a free and fair one. Impeachment is impossible because the President controls enough of the Congress to prevent it.

It seems clear to me that, under such conditions, only one course of action would remain open: the course that Pinochet and the Chilean Armed Forces chose in 1973. If the President has destroyed the economy and is creating conditions where he will either become a dictator or start a Civil War, there’s only one option left: the resort to the coup.

What else would you have had them do? Sit by and watch as Allende destroyed the country and turned it into a new Cuba? Stand around quietly and waited for the knock on the door from the secret police? They, quite simply, had no other choice.

Under Pinochet’s largely benevolent rule, the Chilean economy was reformed and allowed to grow. The Communist influence, which threatened to destroy the nation’s freedoms, was rooted out. A strong US ally was preserved in the war against communism. And, when all was said and done, Pinochet simply turned over power and allowed the full restoration of the democracy.

Now, of course, it is regrettable that the actions taken by Pinochet became necessary. But we must not misplace the blame: the fault for Chile’s time of troubles rests squarely with Salvador Allende, whose ruinous attempt to transform his nation into a communist state (after having received barely a third of the vote) demanded the active (and ultimately armed) resistance of all decent people. It was Allende who, by his abuse of democracy, necessitated its temporary end. Remember that.

Naturally, all of the people executed by the regime were not equally guilty. In all probability some did no more than privately hold leftist beliefs. However, in a public emergency, where the possibility of a civil war (which would probably kill hundreds of thousands) is imminent, extreme measures are certainly justified. How much better would it have been if James Buchannan had three thousand supporters of secession justly hanged in 1860?

None of this is to say that Pinochet’s actions were wonderful. Certainly, some of the things that were done must be considered to be deeply regrettable. However, it is to say that they were necessary and, ultimately, for the good of (almost) everyone.

Can you imagine what the rest of the Cold War might have looked like had South America’s oldest democracy become a Soviet satellite in the mid-1970’s? The United States might well have faced a tide of Communist subversion much worse than that which actually transpired in the 1980’s of our time. Imagine a dozen small wars, with an aggressive Chile seeking to impose its communist system through support to like-minded movements. But for Pinochet’s brave and necessary actions, all that came thereafter might have been changed.

So let us praise Augusto Pinochet and mourn that his contribution to the modern world is not presently (and probably never will be) universally recognized and appreciated.