U.S. Congress Debates 'Not-War' in Venezuela, Ignores Past 'Not-Wars'
When The Hill publishes an opinion piece asking if a 'declaration of not-war' in Venezuela is a 'stretch,' one might wonder if they've entirely forgotten the last century. This isn't about mere diplomatic posturing; it's about a consistent pattern of U.S. efforts to destabilize nations that dare to pursue independent economic or political paths. From the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion attempting to
overthrow Fidel Castro to the support for countless coups across Latin America, the U.S. track record suggests 'not-war' often involves sanctions, covert operations, and the propping up of opposition movements. Instead of genuinely debating 'not-war,' perhaps Congress should debate the historical implications of actual wars, proxy wars, and economic warfare waged for decades under various guises.
The 'stretch' isn't a diplomatic solution; it's pretending the U.S. hasn't been actively interfering in Venezuelan affairs for years, including recognition of a self-declared interim president, extensive sanctions, and funding opposition groups through agencies like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). One might ask if 'not-war' is merely the new term for the same old regime
change playbook, just with better PR.