.
In accepting Centeno's theses, I will demonstrate that the U.S.' role in Latin America during the first period exacerbated the conditions, and reinforced the weaknesses that precluded development of strong states either through conventional, non war related development, or through "Bellicist" theories. In contrast, we will see that the U.S.' role in Latin America during the second period has been mostly positive, tending to support strong states and economies through conventional, peaceful development.
First, the birth of most Latin American nations was not a "birth by fire" in any true sense. That is to say, in securing their freedom from their colonial master-Spain--these nations did not have to wage the sort of all-or-nothing, transformative, "war for your very existence" conflict that would have galvanized all social classes in support of their central government and given the nation a unifying sense of purpose that could form the basis of a strong state. Most Latin American nations gained independence from Spain primarily as a result of the weakness and disintegration of Spain as a colonial power, leaving them with the inherent weaknesses listed above that the U.S. would exploit and manipulate during the first period in furtherance of its own interests.
Thus, the conditions that existed in the Americas at the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 had the U.S. as the regional hegemon, with all other Latin American states or pre-states more or less equal. The U.S. instituted the Monroe Doctrine to limit intervention in the Americas by European powers, but at the same time it declared itself the area's police force, and the Americas its back yard which it intended to regulate for its benefit.
With a hegemon and dominant military power in the area it became virtually impossible for any Latin American nation to wage all out war against another as this would not have been permitted by the U.