Dedicated to the Restoration of Progressive Democracy
Monday, January 28, 2019
"Wag the Dog" Time? Is America Planning to Send Troops Into Venezuela?
A gaggle of Trump aides showed up for a rare White House press conference Monday. Among them was John Bolton, note pad in hand. Bolton caused a stir when cameras revealed what was written on Bolton's note pad.
No, I couldn't imagine that, TB, but neither could the American establishment or, for that matter, American public opinion. It's all blended into American exceptionalism.
The US has no Miltary Basing agreements with Columbia. The Columbian’s nixed that.
The US has roughly 15,000 “troops” available for deployment. 1/3rd are lightly armed Airborne Quick Reaction Forces, 1/3rd are a lightly armed Marine Combined Brigaide, 1/3rd are a Stryker Brigaide.
Venezuela has: 800,000 regular military, 1.2 million “irregulars” Terrain
There’s going to be no “Coelition of the Willing” forming around such a burned out US “Tip of the Spear”,
27 ongoing unwinnable wars of choice have consequences.
Elliot Abrams was appointed, so expect Iran-Contra again, this time as farce.
I don't think the Americans can conquer Venezuela. I don't think the Americans + Colombians or probably even Americans + Brazilians can conquer Venezuela and make it stick. Resistance is likely to be fierce. But what they very very likely can do if they're willing to deal with the consequences is ruin Venezuela, as they've ruined so many countries to remind the rest of what happens to you if you step out of line. Bastards. I think there would be consequences, though. As Jay alludes to, they are already a tad overstretched. And plus, actively going in with military, bombing and so on like the bad old days is likely to be just a bit unpopular in Latin America; the recent pro-US right-wing surge could be arrested in its tracks.
No, relax. I never suggested the US was out to conquer Venezuela. A force of 5,000 soldiers can be used in a variety of ways other than invading another country. The US used about 8,000 to invade tiny Grenada and, even then, they didn't have it entirely their own way.
True, a force that small is more for terrorism. Or as "trainers" or "observers" or whatever for a larger more local force (such as Colombian or Brazilian troops, Colombian paramilitaries, or whoever they can scrape up and pay from Venezuela itself). But an American force, if one is present officially at all, with an official mission related to regime change, will tend to grow. One thing's for sure, they'll never get a vote for intervention through the UN Security Council. Not that that'll stop them, but they'll be going in one fig-leaf down. I think that the Americans, if they go in, will be going in with unrealistic expectations, rose-coloured glasses. They will think that, since the economy has been duly made to scream, the government should have little support and it will only take a little push and the locals will, as in Iraq, "welcome them with flowers". Well they didn't in Iraq, and a lot more Venezuelans are a lot more invested in, if not Maduro's actual government as such, certainly Chavismo, than Iraqis ever were in Saddam. When the Americans begin to encounter reality, it could lead to "mission creep" . . . it already has, really, the whole military option becoming seriously contemplated, plus recognizing this Guaido schmuck, already represent escalation relative to how many fingerprints they would have preferred to have on the situation. If they take one or two steps too far it could indeed lead in the end to a full-fledged invasion.
PLG, I realize the comrades prefer to leave the existing regime in place and Venezuela in ruins as a small price to pay, or for someone else to pay, for upholding the anti-US narrative.
Almost any country would be in ruins if cut off from the finances required to keep a country viable. Even the UK was subordinate to such sanctions under the Wilson socialists. Let's not fool ourselves; if you are not in the 'club' your fucked!
MoS, so you support the idea of a coup? You prefer not to let the people of Venezuela decide who their government should be? Never would have figured you for the Kissinger type (“I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”)
PLG, are you not exhausted by putting up all those straw men you persist in knocking down. You're sounding strident and very brittle.
I'm not saying the upstart is bad. All I'm saying is that, from my own Latin American studies, we don't see many Bolivars in the modern era.
Outsiders treat these situations like a cock fight, each side betting on their choice of rooster. It's the Comrades versus the Gringos, over and over and over again.
My sense is that Trump is trying to revive the now dead Monroe Doctrine. By some accounts China now has a greater presence than the Americans across most of South America. I've read that the two largest foreign banks are Chinese.
The point of this post was not to stage some popularity contest pitting Maduro against his rival. That is where you have disingenuously sought to take it.
The focus of this post is Donald Trump, whose poll numbers are in decline, with an economy that could in the coming year be plunged into a recession, no border wall or other contrivance, and a special prosecutor closing in on some of Trump's family members, i.e. DJT Jr. and Kushner.
This is about wagging the dog. You would be a lot more appreciated if you just tried to stay on-topic.
So you're saying you're posting about "is the US planning on sending troops into Venezuela?" but nobody should be talking about Venezuela or whether the US should be sending troops there. Ooookay.
Yeah, sure, if Trump does this it will probably be timed to cover up domestic issues. But, first, that's not why he's doing it--there is a continuity in US policy towards Venezuela that goes back through the Obama years and into the Bush era. And second, no matter what the Beltway media may think, those domestic issues are far less important than the consequences of the act itself.
And no, this is not about some popularity contest. That happened in May, it's called an "election". This "rival" didn't even run in it--Henri Falcon did. He lost. Maduro won. Other sections of the opposition boycotted the vote. Since they didn't run, they didn't win either. It's called "democracy". Overthrowing democracy is bad, I don't see why it should be considered somehow less bad and less important in Latin America than in, say, Canada, and your trivializing of it is frankly starting to get repugnant. I'm really losing respect for you here. But fine, if you don't like the issues you raise being discussed, whatever, ban me.
15 comments:
Those that don't remember history are bound to repeat it !!
Fuck, we have short memories..
TB
Can you imagine a world where we hold the USA to the same standards s what they do with "rogue " nations??
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/28/huawei-china-telecoms-charged-us-trade-secrets-fraud
TB
No, I couldn't imagine that, TB, but neither could the American establishment or, for that matter, American public opinion. It's all blended into American exceptionalism.
Nope.
The US has no Miltary Basing agreements with Columbia. The Columbian’s nixed that.
The US has roughly 15,000 “troops” available for deployment. 1/3rd are lightly armed Airborne Quick Reaction Forces, 1/3rd are a lightly armed Marine Combined Brigaide, 1/3rd are a Stryker Brigaide.
Venezuela has:
800,000 regular military,
1.2 million “irregulars”
Terrain
There’s going to be no “Coelition of the Willing” forming around such a burned out US “Tip of the Spear”,
27 ongoing unwinnable wars of choice have consequences.
Elliot Abrams was appointed, so expect Iran-Contra again, this time as farce.
I don't think the Americans can conquer Venezuela. I don't think the Americans + Colombians or probably even Americans + Brazilians can conquer Venezuela and make it stick. Resistance is likely to be fierce. But what they very very likely can do if they're willing to deal with the consequences is ruin Venezuela, as they've ruined so many countries to remind the rest of what happens to you if you step out of line.
Bastards.
I think there would be consequences, though. As Jay alludes to, they are already a tad overstretched. And plus, actively going in with military, bombing and so on like the bad old days is likely to be just a bit unpopular in Latin America; the recent pro-US right-wing surge could be arrested in its tracks.
Yup, the “most” the Trump Agenda can achieve is “break” Venezuela even more.
None of the neighbors want that,
Which is why the OAS is taking point, negotiations, elections,
And the Trumpists and their new Sanctions are doing everything possible that Putin want’s to weaken the US and their alliances.
BT dubs,
Bolton always writes his fantasy’s down on legal pads,
Many are NSFW,
No, relax. I never suggested the US was out to conquer Venezuela. A force of 5,000 soldiers can be used in a variety of ways other than invading another country. The US used about 8,000 to invade tiny Grenada and, even then, they didn't have it entirely their own way.
True, a force that small is more for terrorism. Or as "trainers" or "observers" or whatever for a larger more local force (such as Colombian or Brazilian troops, Colombian paramilitaries, or whoever they can scrape up and pay from Venezuela itself). But an American force, if one is present officially at all, with an official mission related to regime change, will tend to grow.
One thing's for sure, they'll never get a vote for intervention through the UN Security Council. Not that that'll stop them, but they'll be going in one fig-leaf down.
I think that the Americans, if they go in, will be going in with unrealistic expectations, rose-coloured glasses. They will think that, since the economy has been duly made to scream, the government should have little support and it will only take a little push and the locals will, as in Iraq, "welcome them with flowers". Well they didn't in Iraq, and a lot more Venezuelans are a lot more invested in, if not Maduro's actual government as such, certainly Chavismo, than Iraqis ever were in Saddam. When the Americans begin to encounter reality, it could lead to "mission creep" . . . it already has, really, the whole military option becoming seriously contemplated, plus recognizing this Guaido schmuck, already represent escalation relative to how many fingerprints they would have preferred to have on the situation. If they take one or two steps too far it could indeed lead in the end to a full-fledged invasion.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/americas/venezuela-army-defectors-plea-for-arms/index.html
PLG, I realize the comrades prefer to leave the existing regime in place and Venezuela in ruins as a small price to pay, or for someone else to pay, for upholding the anti-US narrative.
Almost any country would be in ruins if cut off from the finances required to keep a country viable.
Even the UK was subordinate to such sanctions under the Wilson socialists.
Let's not fool ourselves; if you are not in the 'club' your fucked!
TB
MoS, so you support the idea of a coup? You prefer not to let the people of Venezuela decide who their government should be? Never would have figured you for the Kissinger type (“I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”)
PLG, are you not exhausted by putting up all those straw men you persist in knocking down. You're sounding strident and very brittle.
I'm not saying the upstart is bad. All I'm saying is that, from my own Latin American studies, we don't see many Bolivars in the modern era.
Outsiders treat these situations like a cock fight, each side betting on their choice of rooster. It's the Comrades versus the Gringos, over and over and over again.
My sense is that Trump is trying to revive the now dead Monroe Doctrine. By some accounts China now has a greater presence than the Americans across most of South America. I've read that the two largest foreign banks are Chinese.
The point of this post was not to stage some popularity contest pitting Maduro against his rival. That is where you have disingenuously sought to take it.
The focus of this post is Donald Trump, whose poll numbers are in decline, with an economy that could in the coming year be plunged into a recession, no border wall or other contrivance, and a special prosecutor closing in on some of Trump's family members, i.e. DJT Jr. and Kushner.
This is about wagging the dog. You would be a lot more appreciated if you just tried to stay on-topic.
So you're saying you're posting about "is the US planning on sending troops into Venezuela?" but nobody should be talking about Venezuela or whether the US should be sending troops there. Ooookay.
Yeah, sure, if Trump does this it will probably be timed to cover up domestic issues. But, first, that's not why he's doing it--there is a continuity in US policy towards Venezuela that goes back through the Obama years and into the Bush era. And second, no matter what the Beltway media may think, those domestic issues are far less important than the consequences of the act itself.
And no, this is not about some popularity contest. That happened in May, it's called an "election". This "rival" didn't even run in it--Henri Falcon did. He lost. Maduro won. Other sections of the opposition boycotted the vote. Since they didn't run, they didn't win either. It's called "democracy". Overthrowing democracy is bad, I don't see why it should be considered somehow less bad and less important in Latin America than in, say, Canada, and your trivializing of it is frankly starting to get repugnant. I'm really losing respect for you here. But fine, if you don't like the issues you raise being discussed, whatever, ban me.
Post a Comment