Whether giving a lecture on an economics in a dictator's country and then endorsing a few of one's colleagues to advise that government's economic policymakers entails approving of whatever vile methods that dictator may or may not be using is, I think, a little up for debate than that.

But even if we assume that Friedman did approved of Pinochet's death squads, etc., the trouble comes when trying to square that with the rest of the picture. Friedman's body of work is near-singlemindedly dedicated to the question of how to increas human freedom, in the negative freedom-from-coercion sense, be it coercion by an authoritarian government, a democratic government, or even non-government entities. It's an interest in human freedom even above economic prosperity; going by what he's written, Friedman would sacrifice prosperity if it meant freedom.

So into this we must fit that he somehow, for the brief period he lectured in Chile, decided to start approving of the worst kind of repression — starkly counter to the ideas he professed — and then stopped just as quickly. Which, while possible, does not strike me as particularly plausible.

And I'd agreee that attempted dictator removal can lead to Iraq, but I'd add it especially leads to Iraq if it's assumed to be quick and easy, which it most certainly is not.