Michael's Corner

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The art of foreign policy is quite simply: it’s a good guy, making a deal with a bad guy, to get rid of a worse guy. Then, afterward, you’re left with a dilemma: Can the “good guy” control the bad guy? Can he rein him in when he acts up, and if so, will the “bad guy” remain a good-faith actor? Those are the lingering questions to mull over after a regime-change initiative.

So what exactly happened in Venezuela? We know the “how;” the tactics and maneuvers have been well publicized. It’s more of a “why” issue one must bristle with. First, let us start with what we know: the Venezuela initiative was pulled directly from page one of the United States’ foreign policy playbook—a playbook that dates back to 1953, the year the Eisenhower administration, with an assist from Great Britain, overthrew Mosaddegh. What was Mosaddegh’s crime? The poor bastard had the audacity to suggest that the pool of oil below the sands of his country was Iranian oil. The U.S., which emerged from World War II as the world’s undisputed military and economic power, said, “We’ll tell you whose oil it is, buddy,” and down went Mosaddegh and up went the Shah. When Iran deposed the Shah, the U.S. responded by furnishing the Iraqi army with enough weaponry to blast the living shit out of the Iranian army.

Let’s fast-forward to 2010: Ukraine elected Viktor Yanukovych on the basis of neutrality. The message was loud and clear: “Hey, America, we don’t want your problems.” The U.S. response, under the Obama administration, was to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into Ukraine to launch a propaganda war that led to massive protests and the 2014 overthrow of Yanukovych and the installation of a more NATO-receptive leader. The takedown of Yanukovych might not have been the WWE Monday Night Raw spectacle we just saw with Nicolas Maduro (it was more of a slow burn), but it was a takedown nonetheless.

And now what of Nicolas Maduro? Infantilized Americans, including some talking heads who have long since exhausted their microphones, would love to believe that an unhinged and recalcitrant Donald Trump woke Christmas morning and said, “Let’s start the New Year right; go and take down that Maduro dude.” The reality? The day Maduro seized control of Venezuela in 2013, the CIA and U.S. military intelligence began game-planning, and the result was what occurred just days ago. And while the CIA and military were cooking up the project, Joe Biden put a $15 million bounty on Maduro’s head. Then Trump, perhaps adjusting for inflation, upped the Maduro bounty to $25 million. Doubtless, the director of the CIA or some high-ranking military official with the president’s ear said, “It’s go time,” and laid out the consequences of acting versus not acting.

And that brings us to the “why?” The simple answer is a three-letter word that begins with an “O” and ends with a “L.” Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has found itself in a high-stakes game called: Capture as many global resources as you can before the other guy can corner the market. We know the other guy… or guys, and they have no intention of taking their foot off the gas (no pun intended), and thus the U.S. can only play the game one way: to win. Would it be lovely if the U.S., China, and Russia could have a “campfire” moment and emerge with a new paradigm that will lead to a golden age? Of course it would. But the notion is looking bleak, assuming it was ever possible. Lastly, we Americans should ask ourselves a poignant question: How many of our inalienable rights, freedoms, and entitlements are we willing to forfeit should we demand passivity from our leadership and lose the game of Risk as it pertains to global resources?

*****

I apologize for this “grim reality, this is the world” post. I much prefer to encrypt commentary in creative writing and not do straight, unfiltered commentary, but sometimes I can’t help myself. And since I named the post The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, I’m gonna leave you with a bit of fun. Don’t leave without listening. I promise, it’s a blast, and it will more than make up for the shitty post you just read.

Michael DeStefano
,
, , , , , , , , ,

4 responses to “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”

  1. abn4eternity Avatar
    abn4eternity

    The world seems to have forgotten that on January 1, 1976, the Venezuelan government nationalized the oil fields from US-based companies and forced the companies to flee. At the time, the US government and the world were fine with it. The companies received no compensation from the Venezuelans. I grew up not far from a couple, whose husband had worked in the Venezuelan oil fields, and his wife was Venezuelan. When the Venezuelan government captured the oil fields, they sent in military to arrest and kill the workers and contractors. Our neighbor had to flee with his wife and infant daughter in the middle of the night, but I don’t remember hearing about it on the news at the time or even now. The family lived in fear of retaliation from the Venezuelan government, even in the United States.

    Now that the US has basically taken them back, the world and outspoken “authorities” are condemning the actions. Yet, few are pointing out that Russia, China, and Iran have been courting Venezuela. There is an element here that few seem to be touching on, it is the foothold of communism in our backyard. It is reminiscent of the Cuban Communist issue in the 1960s. If the Russians and/ or China were to get a military presence in South America, the political landscape will shift drastically. Venezuela and other cartel-friendly nations have been exporting drugs to the US and the world for decades, and the powers that be have allowed it, encouraged it even. The powers that be have no allegiance to a nation or people. Only power and control move them. What would happen if the US were to nationalize all the foreign-owned industries and property in the United States? The world would condemn it. It has taken 50 years for the US government to take action but it wasn’t to force Venezuela to give back the oil fields to the companies and workers that built them. The companies and individuals affected by the nationalization of the oil fields are long gone. So, here is the issue I see, what were the main reasons behind the ousting of Nicolás Maduro and why are a few showing the separate reactions of the Venezuelan people? The big news outlets focus on Venezuelans who condemn the Trump Administration, but independent media are showing the other side, that are happy for his ousting. And why is it that when the Trump Administration openly takes down a government, people criticize, but the plan has been on the table for decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations? Yet, the other administration covertly undermined governments while individuals in the CIA, federal law enforcement agencies, and politicians got rich from the transport and distribution of drugs from South America and Venezuela. The oil fields are but a small aspect of the iceberg that the Venezuela ousting encompasses.

    Here’s a final thought. Why are we allowing the US government to keep technology secret that would reduce carbon emissions, extend fuel efficiency, and remove us from the oil economy that we live under, an economy that cannot be sustained? Oil is a finite commodity. At some point, it will be exhausted. What then? Nuclear power is dangerous, hazardous, and extremely volatile. The waste products remain deadly for centuries if not millennia. Solar and wind are no better in the long term. Solar is utilized incorrectly. But these are subjects for another day. I want to end on this thought, without the need for oil production from outside the United States, would the United States be involved in policing the rest of the world or could we become energy independent? And once, independent, could we not help other nations to become energy independent as well? Without the wealth from oil, many tyrannical regimes would fall.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  2. Michael DeStefano Avatar
    Michael DeStefano

    You definitely have your finger on the pulse of what people need to know concerning the life blood of the world (oil) and the corruption it causes. Perhaps one day, if I live long enough, I’ll see fusion. There has been some private equity making investments. I remain hopeful.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  3. abn4eternity Avatar
    abn4eternity

    The issue isn’t funding or research into alternative energy; it is the powers that be refusing to allow a better, less expensive, more sustainable energy source. The EPA has regulations in place that cause vehicles to have less horsepower, use more fuel, and emit more pollutants. There is technology out there that corrects these issues but there is little money in less pollution and more gas mileage. Same with medication and life-sustaining medical care. There is more money in selling a Band-Aid than in selling a cure. A cure removes the customer, a Band-Aid keeps the customer coming back for more.

    For all the money our government spends and is spent in the private sector, there should be no dependence on oil or lifelong drugs when the cure has already been found numerous times. The cures and fixes are suppressed. President Truman signed into law in 1951 the Invention Secrecy Act, which allowed the US government to deem certain inventions for reasons of national security. I don’t remember reading anywhere in our constitution that allows the government to restrict and prohibit inventions that would help the public. But that is the Powers that Be hiding things from us for their own gain and power.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Michael DeStefano Avatar
      Michael DeStefano

      In theory, you are right. But then begs the question: Can the “Cure” industry create as many jobs as the “Band-Aid” industry? I am not an economist, and the issue always come down to dollars, cents, and markets.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a comment

Instagram / TikTok / X

Designed with WordPress