Well, two that immediately come to mind are Cuba and Iran, although there are quite a few others:

In Cuba, the U.S. supported a fairly brutal and corrupt government until 1959, led by Fulgencio Batista. Batista suspended most civil liberties, had connections to organized crime, and did the bidding of large, wealthy landowners and corporations, which made him very unpopular with the poor majority of Cuba's citizenry. Fidel Castro and his compatriots were able to lead a revolution which overthrew Batista and establish a Communist dictatorship with support from the Soviet Union.

Castro was strongly opposed by the U.S. government, because of his political alignment and patron state (the USSR) as well as his hostility to U.S. business interests.

The United States ran a variety of covert and overt operations to assassinate or overthrow Castro after he came to power, all unsuccessful. The most famous example is the Bay of Pigs invasion, which involved Cuban expatriates forming a guerrilla army and attempting an invasion. The guerrillas were trained and funded by the U.S.

Castro was able to defeat the invasion, decisively.

After over 5 decades of active U.S. opposition, the Communist government founded by Castro is still in power, and Castro retired peacefully from the Cuban government, which is now led by Castro's brother Raul.

I think it's safe to say that U.S. policy towards Cuba has been nothing short of a massive failure, achieving no U.S. goals, and through embargo and isolation, has resulted in a great amount of suffering for the Cuban people.

References:

• John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, The Bay of Pigs
• Fear and Loathing of Fidel Castro: Sources of US Policy Toward Cuba, LOUIS A. PEY REZ JR., Cambridge University Press, 2002

In Iran, the U.S. C.I.A., with help from the British intelligence organs, in 1953 overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, the Iranian Prime Minister who was democratically selected by the Iranian Parliament, who intended to nationalize the oil industry in Iran, controlled by British interests. His overthrow led to the establishment of a monarchy in Iran, led by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was very pro-Western and friendly to Western oil interests, but in the long term, proved unpopular with the Iranian populace. The Shah's unpopularity with his people led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which brought in the very theocratic, anti-Western government in power today.

In retrospect, American (and British) interference in Iran was disastrous for U.S. interests in the long term, all morality and questions of international law aside, and can aptly be called 'counterproductive'.

References:

• The CIA Finally Admitted It Orchestrated the Iranian Coup of 1953, Smithsonian Magazine, Colin Schultz, 2013
• The C.I.A. in Iran, New York Times Special Report, James Risen
• Islamic Revolution of 1979: The Downfall of American-Iranian Relations, Krysta Wise, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2011

You mention the Marshall plan. A policy which itself is debatably successful. It's certainly true that it contributed to the Cold War, one argument runs that it was Marshall Aid (Amongst other Allied policies) that led to the partitioning of Germany, the signing of the Warsaw Pact and the building of the Berlin wall. I suppose this does potentially qualify as "containing" communism, but it also counts as creating the problem in the first place.

In France the question of Marshall aid was highly disruptive, it split the country between the democratic and communist unions, led to frequent protests, and eventually convinced the Socialist Ramadier government to toe the allied line of leniency with regards to the occupation of Germany. Public opinion was in favour of Marshall aid, and the communist Unions and parties refusal to accept it meant that they became politically side-lined. Preventing a Communist government being elected in France. (Still very left wing though)

Italy enjoyed similar debates, but Marshall aid was largely unneeded anyway, the American government had sponsored very rapid and effective reconstruction in '46 before Marshall aid was even proposed. This led quite predictably to a brief crisis of inflation and a current account deficit. The Christian Democratic government responded with quite sensible austerity policies and extremely strict budgeting. (The cost of these of course, was extremely high unemployment) The communist parties had never really enjoyed the success in more conservative Italy than they had in the more "revolutionary" France.

In Germany Marshall aid was largely irrelevant for German reconstruction (it was instead the relaxing of the occupation's industrial sanctions that allowed the German economy to function again) but the initial US policy of distributing Marshall aid to the western, democratic nations, and the understandable hesitancy in allowing the Soviet occupied states to also receive aid, had the unfortunate effect of appearing to be a deliberate attempt to keep the East weak, and to rebuild and rearm a western Germany as a bulwark against the USSR.

However, Soviet occupation and border control policy was very lax from '45 to around '47, but from then onwards became increasingly strict. Marshall aid was only truly instrumental in allowing France to recover and its manipulation as a political tool certainly assisted in creating the atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust that led to the beginnings of the Cold War in the 50s.

references:

Tyler Cowen, The Marshall Plan: Myths and Realities, in US Aid to the Developing World: A Free Market Agenda, ed. Doug Bandow, (1985),

John Killick, The United States and European Reconstruction, 1945-1960 (Edinburgh, 1997),

Wendy Carlin, Economic Reconstruction in Western Germany, 1945-55: The Displacement of 'Vegetative control', in Reconstruction in Post-War Germany British Occupation Policy and the Western Zones, 1945-55, ed. Ian D. Turner, (Oxford, 1989),