----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August 2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How do you spell ICE in German? GESTAPO."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me. Pastor Martin Niemoller (c. 1946)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction: This column presents an analysis of what (in the author's opinion) is really going on vis--vis Trump/Venezuela. The "Trump Strategy" has four elements: Distort, Attack, Bluff, Distract.
I. Distort
As is well-known, military elements of the Trump Administration have been, on the open waters of the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, attacking, and sinking, an increasing number of open power boats of modest size, carrying two or more passengers. From the photographs that have been released by the U.S. attacking forces they look to be fairly narrow and up to about 40 ft. in length. There has been no declaration of war against any of the sovereign nations surrounding the bodies of water in/on which these attacks have been made. No one can be absolutely sure of: from whence they have embarked, the nationality of their occupants, what cargo they might have been carrying, and what their destination/mission was. In earlier times, attacks of this kind would have been described as piracy (as could be determined from watching one or more of Johnny Depp's Pirates of the Caribbean movies). (See also the excerpt from a Washington Post editorial, 3 paragraphs below.)
As I said in a comment on a Steve Schmidt Substack column on the matter:
"If the attack on the Venezuelan (since there were no survivors, how can it be certain that it was Venezuelan[?]) boat had been made by a private force, it would have fit the Admiralty Law definition of piracy. In this case, that's a distinction without a difference. Indeed, just from watching their films of the attacks, the U.S. force might as well have been flying a black flag decorated with a skull and crossbones."
Under one definition of Piracy (and there are many): Piracy, in the context of admiralty law, refers to unlawful acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed on the high seas or in international waters. These acts threaten maritime security and commerce, prompting legal frameworks to define and address such offenses.
Further, looking at the broader picture of the attacks, as The Washington Post Editorial Board has put it:
"Was everyone in each targeted ship smuggling drugs? Were the drugs that were allegedly on-board deadly opiates or substances such as marijuana and cocaine? Were the drugs headed toward the United States, or other countries? The answers might vary depending on the strike, and the Trump administration has not made public evidence verifying its claims. But those details are independent from the legality of these killings. U.S. forces are not attacking military vessels. They are attacking civilian vessels, whether those aboard are engaged in crime or not. And the Trump administration is not even claiming the boats posed an imminent threat of violence, or that capturing them would have been infeasible."
There are many points to be made about drug use dangers. If the Trump Administration were truly concerned about drug-use related deaths in the United States it would of course focus on tobacco use, about 400,000 deaths per year [yes, you read that right]), and alcoholic beverages use (around 178,000 deaths per year [you read that right too]). Fentanyl, by contrast, kills about for about 75,000 deaths per year. AND, many overdose-related fentanyl deaths are the result of the user not knowing just how much fentanyl they are consuming [unlike in the use of tobacco and alcohol]). And so on and so forth (as in my book on the subject, Click Here).
But turning our attention to the Trumpers and the threats against Venezuela, and (more recently) Colombia. It is certainly logical to think that Trump is planning to carry on the U.S. tradition of interfering with/changing governments of Central and South American nations going back to the 19th century. The list includes almost of them, e.g., Mexico (three times, 1846, 1867 and 1915), Nicaragua (e.g., multiple times between 1912 and 1933), Guatemala (1954 and during the 1980s), Panama (a critical [but previously fictional] country created by Theodore Rossevelt's intervention separating its territory from that of Colombia [which then also included the territory of the present nation of Venezuela]). One could go on: e.g., Brazil, Argentina, Chile, the Dominican Republic.
And now Trump making a big stink, over Venezuela and to some extent Colombia. Why? Very briefly, first he is trying to make it over fentanyl and its component parts. As if a recreational drug (like, as noted, ethyl alcohol, nicotine in tobacco products) could kill, when its not the use of the drug per se, but rather its overuse. And if Trump were really concerned about the overuse of addictive drugs, he would start with those two substances.
As for fentanyl, as with heroin, it is NOT simple use that kills, but the use of overdoses of the drug. And since (as with heroin) no given package of fentanyl has a dosage label on it, a significant number of packet-uses sadly lead to death, simply because the user does not know how much of the drug they are consuming. (That problem could be solved by legalization, labelling, and selling from package stores. But that is another matter.)
And so, even if Trump is going to invade Venezuela --- such an invasion would not be for any concern with fentanyl addiction (for which, as it happens, there are other cheaper and more effective ways to deal with that problem. (And furthermore, the components of fentanyl are very small and very easy to smuggle in, in baggage through legal ports, for example.) It would be for their oil reserves. But for a wide variety of reasons, ranging from the military to the foreign relations concerns, he's not going to do that either.
Take just the military. For example, carrier task forces, no matter how big they are, just don't do that sort of thing. They support ground-invasion troops. And by golly, there just don't seem to be any such units in the region. In the absence of troop transports, the 10,000 troops being referred to must relate to the crews on the various vessels in the task force. Those forces are neither trained nor equipped for land invasions. So, what (in my view at any rate), is really going on (in addition to the piracy[!]?
Trump has one big problem right now. It isn't drug use by U.S. (about which, for example, he paid no attention in his first term, either the legals [recall, the major recreational- drug killers, or the illegals). It is a government in Venezuela that he doesn't like, primarily because they have the worlds largest reserves. But they are state-owned. Saber-rattling cannot solve that problem and invasion is beyond his capabilities (as pointed out above). So, while distorting what the real drug-use problem is in the U.S. (and not having the foggiest notion how it could be effectively dealt with, and it can be), he appears to be threatening an attack. But even Trump knows just how infeasible that is. So, in my view, its all a bluff. But why? Well, what is Trump's biggest problem right now, as he sees it. Its not Venezuela. It is summarized in just three words: The Epstein Files.
And so. Distort --- the problem; Attack --- small boats, with a few passengers; Bluff --- an invasion that will never happen --- and, ta, da, Distract, distract, distract.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum
One could deal with the Drug War at great length (and indeed in my book on the subject, End the Drug War; Solve the Drug Problem: The Public Health Approach, I have done just that). Briefly, important points about recreational drug-use in the United States. First, supply does not create demand. Demand for recreational (e.g., tobacco. Alcohol, heroin, cocaine, fentanyl) drugs comes from those who want to use them, not the suppliers. Second, by far-and-away the two major drug killers in the U.S. are smoking [in one form or another] tobacco (around 400,000 deaths per year [yes, you read that right]), and alcoholic beverages (around178,000 deaths per year.)
In contrast, fentanyl-overdose (not fentanyl per se) is responsible for about 75,000 deaths per year. AND, many overdose-related fentanyl deaths are the result of the user not knowing just how much fentanyl they are consuming (unlike in the use of tobacco and alcohol). BUT, the bottom line here is that in tobacco and alcohol-related deaths, the dosage is known. In fentanyl it isn't. Two important points here. I could go on at book length about a whole series of others --- which I have.
(Article changed on Nov 04, 2025 at 1:26 PM EST)
(Article changed on Nov 04, 2025 at 3:35 PM EST)
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
