At the Weekly Standard, Jaime Daremblum from the Hudson Institute provides a conservative critique of Obama's Latin America policy. There are two main parts. First, the definition of a "coherent" strategy is one that pushes hard for free trade:
Unfortunately, the Obama administration still lacks a coherent strategy for the region. Each of the four U.S. presidents who immediately preceded Obama launched at least one major initiative in the Western Hemisphere. Under George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, trade liberalization became the lodestar of U.S. policy, resulting in NAFTA, an expansion of the Caribbean Basin Initiative trade programs, CAFTA, and several bilateral free-trade pacts, including agreements with Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Panama.
There are, apparently, no other possible coherent policies.
Second, Obama needs to hate Hugo Chávez, and he currently does not hate him sufficiently. Daremblum offers exactly zero specific ways in which Obama should change his current policies, but in general he should "be standing up" and "confront." What those would entail is left to our imaginations. Daremblum basically argues that Chávez is destabilizing Venezuela, so we need to destabilize the country further in order to stabilize it.
I think it is fair to sum it up as "keep doing what George W. Bush was doing and expect different results." In other words, yet again we get Einstein's definition of insanity.