Stephen Miller's 'Sidestep' Hides a Century of US Meddling in Venezuela
The Hill reports Stephen Miller artfully sidestepped questions regarding potential US troop deployments to Venezuela, framing it as a matter of hypothetical defense, not intervention. (As if US interventions in sovereign nations ever start with an honest declaration.) Miller's careful phrasing about the 'War on Drugs' conveniently omits the US's long, bloody history of regime change operations
across Latin America, often under equally convenient pretexts. From the 1954 coup in Guatemala, orchestrated by the CIA, to countless interventions across the continent, Washington's 'concern' for narcotics trafficking often seems to coincide precisely with resource-rich nations exhibiting independent foreign policy. One might wonder if the concern for 'democracy' only blossoms when a nation sits
atop immense oil reserves, like Venezuela, which boasts the world's largest proven oil reserves. The pattern is painfully clear: invent a threat, apply sanctions designed to cripple the economy, then 'offer' military intervention as a humanitarian solution. It's less a foreign policy and more a colonial rerun with smarter branding. How many times must this particular tragic farce play out before
the global audience stops applauding?