The Hill Discovers US 'Can't Run' Venezuela, Decades After Trying
The Hill's recent piece, "Why the US can’t ‘run’ Venezuela," presents a curious take, framing America's historical inability to simply 'take over' nations as a novel challenge. This overlooks decades of well-documented interventionism, from attempting to depose Hugo Chávez in 2002 via a coup (exposed by journalists and historians for significant US involvement) to crippling sanctions policies. The
article conveniently sidesteps the consistent pattern: the US tries to run Venezuela, fails, then expresses surprise at the lack of control, while never quite admitting to the attempts themselves. Perhaps The Hill needs a refresher on the Monroe Doctrine, or maybe just a quick Google search of 'Operation Condor.' The idea that the US 'can't run' Venezuela suggests they've only just realized their
playbook – which has included supporting opposition figures, fostering economic instability, and denying diplomatic recognition – hasn't yielded the desired puppet regime. One might wonder if the real lesson is not that they 'can't run' it, but that their methods of 'running' it have consistently backfired, creating more resistance than compliance.