Blog

The Washington establishment’s long war against reality has led our country into one disastrous foreign intervention after another.

From Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya to Syria, and now potentially Venezuela, the formula is always the same. They tell us that a country is a threat to America, or more broadly, a threat to American democratic principles. Thus, they say the mission to topple a foreign government is a noble quest to protect security at home while spreading freedom and prosperity to foreign lands. The warmongers will even insist it’s not a choice, but that it’s imperative to wage war.

These “War First” ideologues across Washington have recycled their experiments in regime change for decades, with only instability, chaos, suffering, and resentment to show for it. But no matter their recent failures, they promise that the next regime change will work, that the next country in the crosshairs will soon be a beacon of human freedom and aspiration. If anyone questions this narrative, they are warned of some hypothetical alternative that is always worse, but never real. It’s a geopolitical game of: Heads, they win. Tails, we lose.

We are assured that only drug smugglers are the target of U.S. operations in the Caribbean, but these assurances don’t reflect the growing reality in the region — that is, unless the U.S. plans to attack small drug boats with the overwhelming power of an aircraft carrier, which is perhaps akin to killing a housefly with a steamroller. But with over 10,000 U.S. troops, eight warships, a Virginia-class submarine, and a dozen F-35s already in the Caribbean, and now the USS Gerald Ford Strike Group surging toward the region, the stage is clearly being set for something larger.

It is the height of arrogance to think we can forcibly remove the dictatorship in Venezuela and expect anything different than history has already shown. Liberty cannot be imposed at the point of a foreign bayonet.

Overthrowing Maduro risks creating more instability, not less. The breakdown of state authority may create a power vacuum that even the drug cartels themselves may fill. A generation of purges within the ranks of the Venezuelan military makes them a wild card in the event of an actual war, and we cannot assume they will fold and happily serve a new government preferred by the United States. Think of the anarchy that followed our wars in the Middle East. Do we really want to risk creating similar conditions in our own backyard?

There are assumptions made that, if the U.S. does pursue regime change, it would be an overwhelming victory. But what if an airstrikes-only strategy doesn’t push Maduro out? What if the country is split or spirals into civil war? Will we have to escalate further and further until Maduro is toppled?

Keep reading

The Trump administration murdered six more civilians in the Pacific:

The United States struck two alleged drug-carrying vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Sunday, killing six people on board, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Monday, as calls mounted for investigations into the strikes.

The U.S. military has murdered more than 70 people in the Caribbean and the Pacific over the last two months. The president and the Secretary of Defense have given illegal orders to kill civilians on these boats at least 18 times and every time the orders have been carried out. The president wants to use the military as his own assassins, and it appears that no one is willing to refuse that assignment.

The government has a secret list of 24 organizations that it considers “designated terrorist organizations.” At least one of the groups, the so-called Cartel de los Soles, doesn’t really exist. Others have little to do with the drug trade. The rest are drug cartels that have nothing to do with terrorism. One thing they all have in common is that they aren’t engaged in an armed conflict with the United States. The “conflict” is completely made-up because no one is attacking or threatening to attack the U.S. or American forces in the region. The administration’s justification for the murder spree is a lie built on top of a lie built on top of another lie.

The Intercept spoke to Brian Finucane about the administration’s secret list, and he said this:

“The administration has established a factual and legal alternate universe for the executive branch,” said Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer who is a specialist in counterterrorism issues and the laws of war. “This is the president, purely by fiat, saying that the U.S. is in conflict with these undisclosed groups without any congressional authorization. So this is not just a secret war, but a secret unauthorized war. Or, in reality, a make-believe war, because most of these groups we probably couldn’t even be in a war with.”

The administration’s own briefings have confirmed that they don’t know who the people on the boats are, and they aren’t interested in finding out. Thanks to news reporting, we are slowly getting a better picture of who the president’s murder victims are. The Associated Press investigated earlier U.S. boat attacks and mostly found poor men trying to make a living:

One was a fisherman struggling to eke out a living on $100 a month. Another was a career criminal. A third was a former military cadet. And a fourth was a down-on-his-luck bus driver.

The men had little in common beyond their Venezuelan seaside hometowns and the fact all four were among the more than 60 people killed since early September when the U.S. military began attacking boats that the Trump administration alleges were smuggling drugs.

Many of these men may have been criminals, but they were at most small-time smugglers looking for ways to make a little more money for their families. They had done nothing that could possibly justify killing them, and they were no threat to the military that blew them up. To call these men “narco-terrorists” is a lie, and to murder them because of that lie is utterly despicable.

Keep reading