The issue is that coups and foreign subterfuge are not an effective treatment to political and economic instability, but partially a major contributor. Most of the Latin American caudillos presided over shambolic, corrupt and populist economies, with political support effectively bought off by public works. Even Argentina's own history shows this in spades: the tenure of dictator Jorge Rafael Videla was completely disastrous economically, even by the standards of your average Argentinian President.
I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting a coup as a solution on this thread though right, or in Argentina, or indeed in major FP circles in the US. If governments in Latin America defaulted to military rule its because the military remained the most organised, stable and er, reliable institution there, although civil-military relations in these countries have improved massively over the years. The foreign sponsors are what happens when intelligence agencies with bloated budgets sense an opportunity to do business with reliable business partners, which the military are more than the political class for reasons HillGoose explained.
