ISTM part of the point of “we run it” (* ) BUT leaving the entire government and party apparatus in place is so that the people on the ground are not “working for the occupier” since there is no occupier. It’s still all the same politico-economic structure they were working for before Christmas only with a different set of external geopolitical alignments.
( * As has been said before, it’s “we run it” is meant in the same sense a crime boss says “we run the East Side” - the city is still managing the East Side’s public services and the shop owners are handling their businesses, but just no important stuff goes down w/o the Family knowing and getting their piece.)
I think the idea is that if the local government ignore them they repeat the same strategy and so on until the locals get the idea.
It seems to be working.
The way many see it, the big Iraq mistake was eliminating the entire internal political/military establishment and thus letting all sorts of resistance factions loose in a target-rich environment. So they’re not doing THAT here, plan A is to have the local establishment continue to hold office and keep people in their place, only now “working for us”.
Like when a mob boss takes out another mob boss. Maybe not the best move politically, but a practical move that might just work to some extent to our advantage. I fail to see this benefiting the locals.
The middle-east mindset is far different than the South-American one.
In the 70’s an 80’s the U.S. dominated the region without having to put one boot on the ground thanks to our wonderfully loyal militaries (not loyal to us certainly).
It has always been thus since the Colombian regiment sent to stop Panama from seceding sold its country for those juicy U.S. dollars.
Now, it’s by no means certain that the current Venezuelan leadership will sell their country in the usual manner, but it’s possible, even probable.
And if they do not, Trump can abduct them too and try again.
In the long run it will most likely fail, but, as Keynes said, in the long run we’ll be all dead.
The US military has removed a Venezuelan Political leader. One who was not recognized as legal by the US or Venezuela. How does that give Trump standing to govern Venezuela?
Because no one has told him no. Abducting a national leader violates a state’s territorial integrity and independence, and can be considered an act of war, which is the final straw of diplomacy. But if the aggrieved state and/or its allies do nothing in response, then the aggressor is free to continue those violations. Ultimately, that turns into de facto governance. Diplomacy is ultimately schoolyard politics/bullying on a grand scale.
As it stands, it appears that the Venezuelan government is actively cooperating with the U.S. For all we know, the protests and declarations that they still recognize Maduro as the nation’s leader were just talk, and they really wanted Maduro out and facilitated his capture by looking the other way.
Caracas is actively co-operating with Donald Trump’s administration on plans to export its oil to the US, with interim leader Delcy Rodríguez in close contact with secretary of state Marco Rubio, according to a person close to the Venezuelan government. Teams of experts from Venezuela and the US are collaborating on overcoming legal and bureaucratic hurdles to deliver on Trump’s demand to allow the export to the US of between 30mn and 50mn barrels of sanctioned oil to generate revenue for both the US and Venezuela.
30 to 50 million barrels of oil, yes? It is interesting to read Paul Krugman’s take on that:
In case there was any doubt his conclusion is that it costs more than it brings in, but the cost is paid by someone (the American tax payer) and the gains are reaped by someone else (guess who). So it is very much worth it for the someone elses. As usual.
I read most of the neo-royalism poly sci article Krugman links, even though it is an academic-speak slog. I did like idea that King Charles is now relevant:
One weakness of the neo-royalist idea is that the cliques don’t marry into each other yet. If Vance had married Modi’s niece, instead of a generic Indian-American, the thesis would be stronger.
Imagine if Barron Trump seriously dated a member of the Royal House of Denmark. Greenland would be saved. A hopeless thought, but one that illustrates the world we are in.
No, we put plenty of boots on the ground; they just were intelligence agents and US trained thugs and dictators. We didn’t just command things be done and “lo, it was so”.