Should the U.S. intervene in Venezuela, National Interest and foreign regimes Options

[Nomarchy]

Bush administration has Venezuela in its crosshairs

By George Friedman



Printer Friendly Version
Email this article

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | A few weeks ago, I noted in this space that the United States is beginning to shift its focus — away from al-Qaida and away even from the ongoing violence in Iraq, back to pre-9/11 dynamics. This week, we have seen further evidence of this shift with a new response by Washington to an old bete-noir, Hugo Chavez.

Under normal circumstances, it would be easy to dismiss the Venezuelan president's consistent anti-U.S. rhetoric, were it any less voluble or entertaining. For the past three years, since surviving a brief coup, Chavez has been claiming, first, that the United States was set on toppling his regime and, more recently, that U.S. leaders now seek his assassination. Meanwhile, he has been pursuing some fairly provocative leftist policies — especially for the leader of a country the United States relies on as a significant source of oil supplies.

Whatever warmth there may have been in these chilly relations now appears to be dissipating altogether. In recent days, Chavez has scuttled a 35-year-old military exchange program with the United States, claiming that U.S. soldiers were "waging a little campaign" that included bad-mouthing his presidency and otherwise slighting their host country. Meanwhile, he also has charged that several Americans were caught taking pictures of such things as oil refineries and military facilities, saying this shows that Washington is stepping up its intelligence operations against his government.

Washington, which has categorically denied the claims that any Americans were arrested, would be much more likely to task satellites than human spies with such a mission — if there was much value in photographing oil refineries and military bases to begin with, which there isn't. All of which would again make Chavez's statements easy to dismiss — except for an April 26 story in The New York Times.

According to the story, which clearly was intentionally leaked to The Times by the Bush administration, the United States has concluded that there is no way to improve relations with Chavez and that, in short, he must go. Washington is considering a program of destabilizing Venezuela, which could include financing institutions and political groups that oppose Chavez.

Since this has been a basic model for dealing with regimes in Washington's crosshairs for several years, the report can be taken seriously. Moreover, it was timed to coincide with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's departure for a tour through Latin American states, where her agenda included discussions on Venezuela with other regional leaders.

http://jewishworldreview.com/0405/stratfor042805.php3

[Bart Katz]

Lots of places in the crosshairs. The trick is deciding which and when to pull the trigger.

[hunin]

The more Bushie hassles Chavez, the more popular Chavez becomes. And doesn't appear to be helping Bushie. Time to rethink.

[Nomarchy]

Lots of places in the crosshairs.  The trick is deciding which and when to pull the trigger.
[right][snapback]79545[/snapback][/right]

What's the basic criterion, then? Whether the place has a democratic government, or whether the policies of its regime are deterimental to our 'national interest'?

[Bart Katz]

What's the basic criterion, then? Whether the place has a democratic government, or whether the policies of its regime are deterimental to our 'national interest'?
[right][snapback]79551[/snapback][/right]

It's situational.

[Nomarchy]

It's situational.
[right][snapback]79553[/snapback][/right]

In the thinking or in the 'presentation'?

Cause it doesn't like situational at all, in the thinking. To me, it looks like it's all about the second criterion. We're only interested in 'democracy' for two reasons: 1. Cosmetic and 2. Hope that it leads to policies good for or at least non-detrimental to our national interest, as currently defined.

[Bart Katz]

In the thinking or in the 'presentation'?

Cause it doesn't like situational at all, in the thinking. To me, it looks like it's all about the second criterion. We're only interested in 'democracy' for two reasons: 1. Cosmetic and 2. Hope that it leads to policies good for or at least non-detrimental to our national interest, as currently defined.
[right][snapback]79556[/snapback][/right]

Whether or not the trigger gets pulled. (action).

[lil bart]

Of course.

[Nomarchy]

Whether or not the trigger gets pulled.  (action).
[right][snapback]79559[/snapback][/right]

Fair enough. For that I think the criterion is cost-benefit analysis, both short-term and long-term. Nothing to do with 'principles', IMHO.

[Bart Katz]

Fair enough. For that I think the criterion is cost-benefit analysis, both short-term and long-term. Nothing to do with 'principles', IMHO.
[right][snapback]79566[/snapback][/right]

I would agree that would probably be the underlying reason, regardless of the political claims.

[Guest_davis¹³_*]

Venezulean leader: U.S. citizens oppressed

Hugo Chavez in Havana for trade talks

Friday, April 29, 2005 Posted: 1833 GMT (0233 HKT)


HAVANA, Cuba (AP) -- Saying that U.S. citizens are oppressed by their own government, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez promised Friday that he would not visit the United States again until Americans "liberate" their nation.

Chavez, in Havana for trade talks, told an international gathering of activists here that before an earlier trip to Cuba, a U.S. State Department undersecretary he did not identify warned him not to go because he would no longer be received in Washington.

He said he went ahead with that trip anyway, and later traveled to the United States to visit U.S. President George W. Bush, who he said greeted him with a Coca-Cola in his hand.

"I have not returned, nor do I think about returning again, until the people of the United States liberate that nation," said Chavez, saying that Americans are "oppressed" by their government and U.S. media.

Chavez considers Cuban President Fidel Castro a political ally and close personal friend, and Washington has grown increasingly alarmed by their deepening political and economic alliance.

During Chavez's current visit, the two countries have signed a host of economic and other accords, including a deal for Cuba to buy $412 million in goods from the South American nation, with Cuba waiving all import duties.

Venezuela's state oil company also has opened an office in Havana this week, agreeing to help explore for and refine any crude deposits discovered off the island's coast. It also announced that the 53,000 barrels it has been sending to Cuba since 2000 at preferential terms was recently increased to up to 90,000 barrels daily.

Chavez also criticized the current Latin American tour by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, referring to her as an "imperial lady" who is trying to divide and conquer the hemisphere's developing nations.

Despite Chavez's anti-U.S. comments, his country is the world's fifth largest oil exporter and a top crude supplier to the United States.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas...ezuela.cuba.ap/

[csh]

Hugo Chavez and Venezuela are pretty close to the oil refineries in Jamaica, which some people think is going to become the nation of LaBrushco.
B)
Personally, I was hoping Canada was going to openly announce trade with Cuba.
B)

[GoBigrGoHome]

Darn straight...we should go any danged place we want!!!

[Guest_davis¹³_*]

Darn straight...we should go any danged place we want!!!
[right][snapback]79739[/snapback][/right]

Yeee haw!!! Damned injuns!!!

I guess Bush is a cowboy.

[celtcahill]

Lots of places in the crosshairs. The trick is deciding which and when to pull the trigger.

It might be worthwhile to reassure ourselves that we have a trigger to pull, and are prepared for the consequences first.

Even the Iranians werer thumbing their nose at our threats this week, pointing out we don't have anything to give that issue but bluster.

I note that the Sudanese deserve neither democracy nor ordinary huiman rights despite their genocid=al policies.

I note the Koreans - soon to be reantagonistic in response to shrub's new reantagonism - have three to six nuclear weapons and are getting ready to test one just to be sure we know.

And we have nothing to stop them with but more of the same with Alaska, the Pacific Northwest and Utah downwind.

We are not just weaker, but more dangerously weaker than ever before. No troops, but missiles and bombs we got.

If I was any other country, I'd be scared of us too.

[Bart Katz]

It might be worthwhile to reassure ourselves that we have a trigger to pull, and are prepared for the consequences first.

Even the Iranians werer thumbing their nose at our threats this week, pointing out we don't have anything to give that issue but bluster.

I note that the Sudanese deserve neither democracy nor ordinary huiman rights despite their genocid=al policies.

I note the Koreans - soon to be reantagonistic in response to shrub's new reantagonism - have three to six nuclear weapons and are getting ready to test one just to  be sure we know.

And we have nothing to stop them with but more of the same with Alaska, the Pacific Northwest and Utah downwind.

We are not just weaker, but more dangerously weaker than ever before.  No troops, but missiles and bombs we got.

If I was any other country, I'd be scared of us  too.
[right][snapback]79765[/snapback][/right]

Nothing really new with any of the above.

[GoBigrGoHome]

Davis...you got a problem with kickin' ass and takin' names later?

[GoBigrGoHome]

I'll always maintain that the BIGGEST thing Bush did wrong in Iraq is to leave any buildings standing and any opposition breathing!

[GoBigrGoHome]

I'd have called for copious MOABs!

[Bee]

I'll always maintain that the BIGGEST thing Bush did wrong in Iraq is to leave any buildings standing and any opposition breathing!
[right][snapback]79901[/snapback][/right]

What?

Big? You been ingesting too many nutritional suppliments?

:blink:

Doesn't the news that that weren't any WMDs in Iraq make a difference?