That is undoubtedly true that the profits end up in the pockets of the leaders. After all, they aren’t cost centers that are defined.
My outlook on this is derived from the specific work of F.A. Hayek “The Road To Serfdom” which argues that socialism cannot work, and is in any form a version of tyranny by definition. (I don’t view the political spectrum as Fascists/Republicans on the right side of the spectrum, and Socialists/Communists on the Left side.
I view the spectrum as no government (anarchy) as the terminus point at one side, and Socialists/Fascists/Communists clustered and somewhat indistinguishable on the opposite side of that same spectrum with total Orwell-like iron fist of government at the terminus of that side.
That is, I see a progression from no government to things like Greek-style “Democracy/Constitutional Republics somewhere in the middle, then socialistic oligarchies/Fascism/Communism all clustered at the other end, and those things can be somewhat indistinguishable in many ways. (In the middle of the 20th Century, Communists and Fascists both recognized the other ideology (Communists vs Fascists) was a fertile ground for new recruits for each of them, because even they understood that they weren’t that different in the end.
That is why I tend to lump Venezuela in with Cuba, China, Russia, et al because even though they are self-described as socialist, anyone who pays attention knows that the Venn diagram of socialism/communism/fascism all share common territory.
And I agree-blaming the sanctions on others is always an effective internal PR tactic. Germany did it quite effectively in the first half of the 20th Century, and Cuba did it quite effectively in the second half...and still doing it.
Where I would part ways with your analysis is any consideration of whether Communist China’s intentionally hybridized form of Communism/Capitalism has long legs or not-in the end, when they have control, the velvet glove of the Capitalist world trade partner will be removed, and Orwell’s “1984” will be the result.
Communist China would do that openly now if they thought they could still manage the “capitalist trade partner and friend to the world of commerce” but they know they have to be patient. They have managed to hollow out the industrial capacity of their enemies to an unprecedented degree, but...they aren’t there yet.
I see that you view this endeavor in Venezuela as an overextension of military force. I see it differently. For example, I see any involvement in Ukraine, any at all, as both a military and political overextension, and part of that is that I still view Ukraine and Russia through a historical prism where Ukraine was sharing the power with Russia in the Soviet Union, and had plenty of Ukrainians in the top levels of industry and government. Neither is part of the now defunct Soviet Union, but I still view this as an internecine fight in which we have zero strategic interest.
I do not see the events in Venezuela in that same light. We DO have a vested interest there, just as we do with respect to the Panama Canal.
With Communist China it may be more durable than the Constitutional Republic of The United States, but I have to throw my lot in with the ideology that values the individual over the collective, so I am compelled to support the one (US) over the other (CCP). My tagline makes my sentiment clear in that respect.
Do I view our very expensive Armada off the coast of Venezuela as “overextension”? Not exactly. Do I think it’s about drugs? Absolutely not. It’s about regime change.
People are always claiming that this or that war is “really” about oil or “really” about conflicting ideology (capitalist vs communist or whatever) and so on.
What I’ve noticed is that when we go to war, there is usually a constellation of factors backed by powerful interests. For example Libya: yes, there was oil; yes, there was desire for a US military base there; yes, there was desire to divert Gadaffi’s stockpile of weapons to our pet terrorists in Syria; yes, there were powerful people who had animus toward Gaddafi for his past crimes (like Lockerbie) and so on. The French, still on a chocolate high from their nasty shenanigans in Cote d’Ivoire, thought ditching Gaddafi would protect their precious francafrique (bonus: literally burying evidence of Gaddafi’s magnificent campaign contribution to Sakozy). And then there were those in Foggy Bottom who thought the chaos of a failed state where Libya used to be would be a geostrategically Martha Stewart Good Thing.
Well, that all mostly blew up in their faces. A once fairly prosperous and stable Libya became a failed state sprouting slave markets and launching leaky boats overflowing with migrants toward Europe — and sending ever-proliferating iterations of ISIS to overrun the Sahel causing all sorts of mayhem. This last bit dislodging the French and their Francafrique and running the US out of our bases in Niger, etc. And Sarkozy is now appealing his conviction for that big contribution he got from Gaddafi. At least we got a bunch of Gaddafi’s arsenal into the hands of our pet headchoppers in Syria and the Foggy Bottomers got their chaos and failed state, but is it as wonderful as what they envisioned?
I predicted with great confidence that Libya would end up exactly as described above (failed state sprouting ... “) before we dropped the first bomb. Even though I’m hardly a North African specialst. If one has learned to analyse these things, it was very easy to foresee.
I can’t predict with certainty how bombing Venezuela and taking out Maduro would work out. And I’m certainly not a South American specialist. I hope we don’t go there. If we do, I can see a real potential for prolonged civil war (likely competing warlords who are also drug lords) and all the chaos and ills that would spill over from that. There would certainly be more ill will among the peoples of Central and South America toward us gringos. How that would exactly play out, how much it would be a bother to us, I can’t say, but it would be there.
It looks to me like Trump is trying to pressure Maduro into running off into exile. If that works, there’s a chance of a mostly peaceful transition, but it’s not guaranteed. Maduro seems to be unwilling to budge, though. We’ll see how it all shakes out, I guess.
Oh, I have no use for communism. Having lived in countries just emerging from communism, I’ve seen first hand what a disastrous system (and stupid ideology) it is. I hate hate hate communism and what it does to human beings.
The Cold War is over. International Communism (poison spread by the defunct USSR) is dead. Yeah, there are a few poisoned victims’ bodies still lying around gasping (like Cuba and Venezuela), but it’s dead, not pining for the fjords.
Do I feel sorry for the impoverished people of Cuba and Venezuela? Sure I do. Do I think we need to expend our blood and treasure to save them from their folly of trying communism? Um, no. That’s their job.
Do I, like Churchill, think “democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others”. Of course I do. I love our constitutional republic and forever may she last and prosper! Not every country is suited to liberal Jeffersonian democracy, though. Certainly not Libya or Iraq!
Then there were those who imagined that if we helped China become rich, it would embrace liberal Jeffersonian democracy. Uh, how did that work out?
Re China’s empire building strategy: I have no illusions about how “nice” they can be once they have a chokehold. Look at poor Cambodia and what they’ve done there. I can’t begin to describe how horrified and sickened I am. They burned people out of their charming little villages in Kiri Sakor, people I knew and cared about. Enslaved people (literally!) in their scam call centers, turned Kampong Saom (aka Sihanoukville) into a dystopian nightmare, despoiled the beautiful coastline and destroyed goodly sections of once pristine national parks.
As much as I despise what they’ve done there, I can’t help noticing their rather successful empire-on-the-cheap for profit strategy. First, they invested in R&D and infrastructure (which went a long way in fueling their near-miraculous economic growth), then went around telling what we call “developing nations” this: “You can be rich like us! Just buy into our 5G network and ...” and “let us build you a nice railway/roadway/airport for the goodies we want to extract from you” (bonus: we won’t insist you have gay pride parades or gay marriage — and by the way, you can keep your icky dictator, too, your business, not ours). And voila, nice profitable empire building with no costly military adventures. Not even having to engorge “NGOs” with regime changing colorful cash extracted from taxpayers. I have to admit, pretty slick.
Meanwhile, we neglected our infrastructure and investment in R&D while spending trillions on forever wars and hundreds of military bases spanning the globe. On top of that, we very stupidly pushed a very reluctant Russia into the arms of China (which they had always viewed warily at best). While our interests and Russia’s are not in perfect alignment, we do have important convergent interests which outweigh our divergent ones. Post-Soviet Russia truly wanted to join the West and to be more in alignment with us as opposed to China. But the idiots in charge listened to the likes of Brzinski and Wolfowitz (and Nuland at al) instead of real statesmen like Reagan and real diplomats with strategic vision like Kennan.
Russia will always be an also-ran in the superpower club, stuck a distant third behind the US and China, but it was crazy to push #3 into China’s camp when we could have had it mostly in ours in matters that matter.
Imagine, if instead of squandering all those trillions on stupid forever wars (and our other little military adventures), we had invested in R&D and infrastructure. We’d be way, way ahead of China now, and our military would have even more advanced tech and weaponry. We’d be not only more prosperous, but even more secure.
Ah well, at least we got one big “triumph” — we succeeded in getting an Al Qaeda/ISIS headchopper in place of Assad in Syria. (Yes, I’m afraid I just now resorted to sarcasm, the lowest form of humor.)
Note I am not advocating isolationism. I do advocate building up our own country (America First) and being very judicious about engaging in expensive foreign adventures. And again, yes I want us to have the best military with the best tech. I just think we should have invested in R&D for the military tech (which would have benefitted our civilian side, too) instead of squandering our trillions on black holes like Afghanistan and Iraq.
As for competing ideologies, again, the Cold War is over. The USSR was like one of those trees completely rotted out inside, but somehow still managing to stand — at least for a bit despite its rotted-out economy during the 1980s. And the rotten tree duly fell. No more trying to spread International Communism. No more International Communism vs. Western Freedom and Democracy. But we didn’t give up waging dubious wars in the name of Freedom and Democracy (no matter what they were really about). China bought a clue even before the USSR fell, and went hybrid (and in a couple of aspects resembles the “crony capitalism” we decry here in the States).
The trees of Cuba and Venezuela are rotten in their cores and will also fall. Do we really need to fire up our chainsaws and go in blazing? I’m not convinced we do. How about we just be a good trading partner with them when they fall? Make money, be happy. Have them on our side. Like we should have done with Russia.
Thanks for the thoughtful and intelligent discussion. It’s grown rare on FR these days, and I really appreciate it!