|
Okay, here comes another long one!
Really, what history books are you reading? The US did not "walk into a civil war" in Vietnam. The US created a civil war in Vietnam. When Vietnam, led by Ho Chi Minh, won their revolutionary war against the French colonialists, just after WW II, Ho Chi Minh asked the U.S. to support UN sponsored elections in Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh would have won that election. So, the U.S nixed the elections, and the CIA moved into the 'vacuum' (i.e., Vietnam's independence!) left by the defeated French and created a government--the South Vietnamese government--as a U.S puppet. There would have been no 'civil war' if the U.S. had not nixed the elections and funded and organized an unrepresentative and very oppressive, puppet government in the South to do U.S. bidding--for instance (just as Colombia has done), 'inviting' the U.S. military into their country. Ho Chi Minh was a hugely popular hero of Vietnamese independence, and had a superb military general and army. He would have been elected by a big margin and would have made short work of the extremely corrupt opposition if they had continued fighting. (Likely, they would have fled the country taking their ill-gotten wealth with them.)
The ostensible reason that the U.S. stepped into this "vacuum" in Vietnam was two-fold: Communist China and Communist Russia. The Pentagon theorists had what was called "the Domino theory," that, if one little country "fell" to this big bugaboo monolith, "the international communist menace," they would all "fall." They failed to understand that Vietnam had been fighting off invaders--most particularly China--for five thousand years. They were not about to be anybody's satellite. The only issue to them--their passion--was INDEPENDENCE. The UN sponsored election in Vietnam would not have been a "fall" to "communism." It would have been a CHOICE of a communist economic system in a democratic context. And that was unnacceptable to the U.S. anti-communist ideology of the day, that communism was inherently tyrannical, and that if anybody "fell" to it, by choice or not, they needed to be "saved" and forced to be capitalists. (The U.S. made this mistake in MANY 'third world' countries--mistaking people who wanted social justice for people "falling prey" to Soviet or Red Chinese tyranny.)
However, while some U.S. and Pentagon leaders no doubt believed all this bullshit about "the communist menace," something else was occurring in the post WW II period, which was the real driver of the Vietnam War--and that is what President Eisenhower called (in his last speech in office) the "military-industrial complex," which he described as a threat to democracy. The U.S. had failed to demobilize after WW II, and all the U.S. corporations that had arisen to support and profit from that world war needed more wars to continue sucking off the U.S. taxpayer tit. The Vietnam War was primarily driven by war profiteers. True, there was no market in Vietnam (other than heroin) that was the lure to the U.S. The "market" was here--in tanks, helicopter gunships, aircraft carriers, battleships, fighter jets, bombs, rifles, bullets, napalm, uniforms, helmets, food rations and all the accoutrements of a full scale war.
Do you know what LBJ said, three days after the Kennedy assassination? He said, "Now they can have their war." He was speaking of the CIA and Vietnam.*
They had to have a war to keep it all going. And the CIA had one all set up and ready to go.
Venezuela is different in that U.S. control of its oil (which is said to be twice the reserves of Saudi Arabia) is the main lure. I am not saying that everything is exactly parallel and the same. Obviously, it isn't. There are other differences. I think that the Colombian military--corrupt as it is--is a better fighting force than the South Vietnamese army ever was, and will do the bulk of the fighting in a war that is made to look like a Colombia vs Venezuela war. But it will, in truth, be a U.S. vs. Venezuela war, with the U.S. military occupying at least SEVEN military bases in Colombia, providing planes, pilots, bombs and high tech surveillance, probably blockading the Gulf of Venezuela (to dry up Venezuelan government revenue), providing ground troops and special ops backup, providing Blackwater (Xe) mercenaries to do some of the dirty work, and handling all the war propaganda in the corporate press. The U.S. basically created the Colombian military, by larding it with $6 BILLION of our hard-earned tax money. And that military is what is propping up the extremely corrupt narco-thugs who are running Colombia, with their drug trafficking and their death squads. And those facts are very similar to South Vietnam.
"They (the Venezuelans) have more money and time to fight a war" (than the Vietnamese)??? You think the Vietnamese didn't have the time and resources to fight a war? How did they win it then?
They fought for three frigging decades--first the French, then the CIA, then the whole U.S. army--until they BEAT the biggest war machine in the world and threw the U.S. military out of their country. I'd say that took a bit of commitment of time and resources. Little brown people in straw hats and sandals, who dug one-person bomb shelters up and down their country--thousands of holes in the ground with straw mats over them, along the roads and other places, for people to jump into when the U.S. bombers came, and extensive networks of dugout caves, containing command centers and field hospitals and long underground roadways for troops, from which they fought the war.
Rarely has there ever been such devotion to independence. And--who knows?--their very poverty may have been an advantage. They had little else but their integrity and their dream of a government of social justice in an independent country to sustain them.
I agree that the Venezuelans would fight ferociously, and so would others on their behalf (the Bolivians come to mind, and potentially a lot of others)--because they would be fighting for the same things: self-determination, self-government, social justice. We are talking about people impassioned by democracy and independence, just like the Vietnamese. Their relative wealth, compared to Vietnam in the 1950s-70s, is not really relevant. And, despite the Chavez government having cut poverty in half, poverty still exists and the memory of vast poverty is very fresh, indeed. And that is true of many others who might join the fight. The Bolivians, the Ecuadorans and others are still quite poor, because they have had leftist governments a shorter amount of time. Defending the Bolivarian revolution--their dream of independence, self-rule and social justice--would motivate them. And U.S. forces would not have that motivation. They would be demoralized, like many of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan--wondering why they are there, often horrified at what they have to do and just trying to stay alive. Aside from bombs and technology, the Colombian military might be more of an adversary, because it would be more like a civil war--which they would likely see as an extension of their war with the FARC guerrillas--a war among brothers. Colombia and Venezuela have many historical and genetic connections. This is yet another reason for the U.S. to push the Colombian military out front, to do most of the fighting and take most of the casualties, while the U.S. acts in support with bombings, blockades and black ops.
I think the U.S. would lose. I think it would be the U.S. empire's "Waterloo." But when did common sense--such as realizing that the Vietnamese were passionate about their independence--ever stop the Pentagon from doing anything?
One other thing that I didn't mention above: During the U.S. instigated white separatist rebellion in Bolivia (in which the fascists tried to split off the gas/oil rich eastern provinces), Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, stated publicly that there is a coordinated rightwing plot for secessionist rebellions in three countries: Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador. Fascist politicians in the northern (oil) provinces of Venezuela and Ecuador openly talk of secession. And the Bushwhack rehearsal of this strategy in Bolivia (a rebellion that failed) leads me to believe that secession could be part of the war plan design. At a certain point, fascist groups in Venezuela's northern oil provinces would declare their "independence" and request support for their "freedom fight" from the U.S. military (and/or the Colombian military). They would invite the U.S. military in. I believe that this is what Rumsfeld was referring to, in his 12/1/07 op ed in the Washington Post. He urged "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America. "Swift action" likely means military action. "Friends and allies"--well, the U.S. doesn't have many of those in South America, but fascist groups that the CIA/USAID has been funding within Venezuela (and Ecuador, Bolivia and other countries) are probably who he meant. And Colombia itself could be made out to be under attack--say, in one of these 'Gulf of Tonkin'-like incidents that are being developed on the Colombia/Venezuela border.
As for it being cheaper for the U.S. to continue buying Venezuelan oil, than invading/occupying Venezuela, I think you miss several important points:
1) The U.S. military buildup in the region (what is it for?).
2) Venezuela is a member of OPEC and thus reduces production to drive up prices, like the others (including Ecuador, by the way--also a member of OPEC). The U.S. would be rid of that problem. The Pentagon's big gas tank would be filled for a long time. The U.S. has been so hostile to Venezuela, that Venezuela may become hostile back. It has already found some other markets for its oil, and could cut off the U.S. supply. That danger would be eliminated if Exxon Mobil was running things in Venezuela.
3) The U.S. hates the Chavez government. They want to be rid of it. It sets a bad example, for instance, by providing its people with universal free medical care. Venezuela has transparent elections. We don't. That is another reason that our corpo-fascists hate Venezuela. The Chavez government is also using some of its oil wealth to liberate other countries, like Bolivia and Argentina, from World Bank/IMF indenture, and to "raise all boats" (to assist smaller countries in achieving economic independence). The U.S. hates this as well. The World Bank/IMF is one of their prime "shock doctrine" and domination mechanisms against the 'third world.' Chavez/Venezuela created the Bank of the South to keep development funds in local and regional control and to include social justice goals in development projects.
4) The U.S. hates the strong alliances among leftist governments in Latin America, and especially hates the ALBA trade alliance, organized by Venezuela, in Central America/the Caribbean. They don't want a "fair trade" rival to their "free trade for the rich." And they are most definitely "circling the wagons" in this region (Central America/the Caribbean) as a special "free trade for the rich" zone. And there are many lucrative franchises up for grabs there--for instance, telecommunications in Honduras, which Mel Zelaya (a Chavez ally) wanted to keep public and which John McCain wants to privatize. Venezuela's influence strongly favors and supports public utilities. Venezuela set the example--for Bolivia, Brazil and other countries--to bargain hard with multinationals who want to exploit their resources, to get a better deal for their people. The U.S. hates Chavez for that. (And Exxon Mobil is seething about it.)
5) Look at a map. Venezuela's oil coast fits like a glove into that "circle the wagons" region. In Exxon Mobil's hands, the Gulf of Venezuela would supply the oil (greatly enriching Exxon Mobil) to the Pentagon's war machine as well as to "free trade for the rich" tankers taking raw materials to the slave labor markets in the Caribbean/Central America, and shipping the cheaply made Gap sweatshirts and other products to high-priced markets, in revitalized "globalisation." Venezuela has lots and lots and lots of oil, and it's right there on the Caribbean coast amidst the very countries where the U.S. has been most successful at imposing "free trade for the rich" agreements--Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama. But those countries were beginning to rebel, under Venezuela's influence--to demand higher wages, to insist on better public services, especially to the vast poor majority (health care, education, transportation), and to improve their democracies and elect real representatives of the people. They squashed one of them--Honduras. They cowed another--El Salvador. They no doubt have plots in Guatemala and Nicaragua (both with leftist governments). This is a U.S. economic exploitation plan, and I think they want Venezuela's oil to fuel it, and they want to stop the Chavez government from providing cheap or free oil to these small countries (including Cuba) in barter trades and other deals that are aimed at the empowerment and collective strength of the small countries.
6) The "dominance" power of having toppled the Chavez government and knocked over Venezuela's huge oil supply would be very heady, indeed. The "Project for a New American Century" would be born again, after their having failed to acquire Iran's oil (probably because of threats from nuclear powers China and Russia), and after their having "lost" one country after another in Latin America to leftist governments (--governments that are rejecting "free trade for the rich," that are rejecting the U.S. "war on drugs," that don't want the U.S. military on their soil, and that are defying U.S. dictates on many issues, including Cuba and Iran.)
7) Venezuela's oil coast must look like 'easy pickuns' to the Pentagon, after they sized up Iran (which is prepared for war) and Iran's nuclear allies, China and Russia. Venezuela has some agreements with China and Russia, but nothing like their dependence on Iran for oil. Would they defend Venezuela? No, I don't think they would. I think they would concede it to the U.S. "sphere of influence." What about Brazil? Their president has been a strong Chavez ally and defender, but he's leaving office soon (and may be in ill health) and will likely be preoccupied with the Olympics in his final years. And I'm sure that the CIA/USAID is working overtime to get a rightwing government in Brazil (as I believe they did in Chile, just recently.) With the rightwing coup in Honduras (believe me, totally supported and desired by the U.S.), El Salvador's consequent backing down on joining ALBA, the election of a rightwing billionaire in Chile, Venezuela's allies are being chipped away, one by one. The combined power of all of Latin America (and the EU) was unable to overturn the U.S.-backed coup in Honduras. The combined power of all of Latin America has been unable to significantly change U.S. policy on Cuba. And the forces that might combine to support Venezuela in an attack by the US/Colombia are fewer than they were a short time ago. ALBA has been harmed, by the coup in Honduras. UNASUR has been harmed by Colombia's undermining of a joint defense force, and by Chile electing a rightwinger. U.S. "divide and conquer" has had some successes. That may be all that they think they need to move against Venezuela with impunity--in the minds of the Pentagon and other war planners. (Or they may wait until they can do more "divide and conquer" damage. Another factor in timing is how far the Pentagon prep has gotten. Are they occupying the seven bases already, etc.?)
8) Cost: When did the Pentagon ever count the cost, in lives or treasure? Just think what they have done--in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. They ignore their own internal knowledgeable dissenters--who strongly warned against "a land war in Asia," who warned against the Iraq War, who have lamented the mistakes in Afghanistan--and they are more "privatized" than ever before, with intense war profiteer pressures on both Pentagon war planners and politicians.
-----
Stupid? Yes. Costly--in lives, treasure and good will? Absolutely--very costly. In fact, it could cause a permanent breach between the northern and southern halves of this hemisphere.
And, in my opinion, the U.S. would lose. But that does not mean that the Pentagon is not planning it, is not putting war assets in place all over the region and that it won't happen.
It could be 'mere' war profiteering--these seven new military bases in Colombia and all the rest. The "war on drugs" justification is wearing very thin, so they have to invent phantom threats (as the Honduran coup general put it, preventing "communism from Venezuela reaching the United States"), to keep those BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in "war on drugs" military booty coming in. And it could be mere bluster--designed, for instance, to cow little countries like El Salvador back into the "free trade for the rich" fold. I can't really predict what the U.S. 'military-industrial complex' will do, nor what Obama would do, if this is sprung upon him by some 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident or 'Bay of Pigs' ploy (--though he caved on Honduras, and also defended the U.S. military buildup in Colombia). All I can say is that what I see are a lot of war assets being put in place around Venezuela on land and sea, with considerable resemblance to how Vietnam was arranged (corrupt puppet government, sneaky U.S. buildup, use of a 'front' military, border incidents increasing, brainwashing hatred of the target government, etc.), and an added motive (to war profiteering): oil.
The U.S. political establishment and the Pentagon keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and I don't see any reason to believe that they will stop doing it. Back a few decades, the CIA funded and created Al Qaeda to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, and just look at the colossal disasterS that they have brought about by that decision. Afghanistan would have been far better off as a Soviet satellite and would be a free country today, and a bulwark against extremism, if they had had the benefits of education, health care and other development that the Soviets were providing them--and Al Q might not even exist. Our brilliant strategists funded both sides of the Iraq-Iran war, and provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons to use on the Iranians to devastating effect, and the Iranians know damn well who did what. Before that, our team toppled Iran's democracy (around the same time that they nixed the UN sponsored elections in Vietnam) and installed the horrible Shah of Iran, who inflicted 25 years of torture and oppression on the Iranian people, who turned to the mullahs to protect their revolution against further U.S./western interference. By trying to keep control of that oil with brutality, they lost it. The U.S. has made so many mistakes like this--that result in a less peaceful, less just, more war-prone and unjust world--including recent mistakes like permitting a rightwing coup in Honduras and escalating the horrors in Afghanistan--that it is difficult to count them. They have alienated people throughout Latin America, in the Middle East and elsewhere--people who just want what we want--a peaceful, decent life--and have created blowback of every kind, which in turn creates the conditions for our war profiteers to exploit.
It has always been true that the U.S. can get whatever it truly needs in a "fair" market world. But our corporate rulers do not want a "fair" market world, and our war profiteers are right there to tell them that they don't have to agree to fairness. I see these principles very much at work in the U.S. military buildup around Venezuela. Exxon Mobil --the richest corporation on earth--does not have to agree to a fair, 60/40 split of the profits, favoring Venezuela and its social programs, if the CIA can topple the Chavez government or the Pentagon can just take over the oil, on Exxon Mobil's behalf, by using Colombia as its proxy. Exxon Mobil refused the 60/40 deal, and walked out of the talks with the Chavez government. So, does Exxon Mobil get use of the U.S. military to try to take it by force? That is the pattern.
The U.S. serves the needs of U.S.-based and other multinational corporations, whatever they are--whether toppling Guatemala's democracy for United Fruit, or Iran's democracy for Standard Oil, or providing post-WW II profits to war profiteer corps with Vietnam, or crippling 'third world' economies with onerous World Bank/IMF loans to force them to accept "sweatshop" labor conditions and destruction of their agricultural industry, to enrich U.S. retailers and Big Ag--or invading Iraq or Venezuela for Exxon Mobil. Our government is at their disposal. Our politicians are in their pay. And it doesn't matter if the cost is high in lives and treasure. Neither these mega-corps nor their servants in our government will ever pay. We will pay it. That is the idea. They profit from unfairness, by force if necessary. We pay.
I'm sorry that I've hit you with another long post. I apologize. I am not very good at cryptic or succinct comments. I believe that my views are well-researched, and the result of a long life and a lot of thought. I appreciate you replying.
-------
*(See, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It Matters," by James Douglass.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
