US Military Intervention: Why is it Always 'Surprise' for Us?
"Hundreds came out to protest in large cities coast to coast," the Guardian notes, as the Trump administration 'snatched Maduro.' The headline implies a fresh outrage, a sudden deviation from US norms. Yet, the playbook for destabilizing South American nations, from Allende's Chile to Arbenz's Guatemala, has been collecting dust since the 1950s. The 'humanitarian concerns' cited for intervention
conveniently forget the decades of US sanctions that crippled Venezuela's economy long before any 'military intervention.' One might wonder: how many times can a country 'discover' a crisis in its own backyard it helped create? The media frames this as a Trump-era anomaly, rather than a continuation of documented regime change operations spanning administrations. It appears the 'surprise' isn't
the intervention itself, but the public finally noticing the pattern. Critics argue the real outrage isn't just the 'snatching' of a leader, but the snatching of a nation's sovereignty, continuously repackaged as 'democracy promotion.'