Headed to Latin America. Venezuela?

In a few hours, I fly to Latin America. This trip has been planned for several months by an Emmy-nominated filmmaker. He and his team are shooting a documentary about the US’s economic hit man (EHM) strategy and my role in developing it. Last week, the film and this trip took on a significance we previously could not have imagined.

The US's capture of Venezuelan president Maduro and his wife is a perfect example of the evolution of the EHM strategy that is the film’s theme, and that I describe in my upcoming book, The Art of the Steal: Trump and the Economic Hit Man Presidency.

Let’s be clear: The EHM strategy is not a partisan issue. Regardless of the book’s subtitle, the subject is not Trump, the person. The subject is the way the EHM strategy has evolved and become endemic to the Oval Office.

Let’s also be clear: Maduro deserved removal. He was an illegitimate president presiding over economic collapse, human rights abuses, and drug trafficking. Whether military invasion was the right method is now irrelevant – it already happened. The real issue that stands before us is: what comes next?

The pundits seem focused on who ends up running Venezuela. Will it fall into political turmoil like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya after their governments were overthrown? Will the United States end up playing a significant role in trying to govern a foreign country, while at the same time struggling with its own divisive political and economic problems? Will an “America first” president who campaigned on a promise to avoid international wars and has lobbied for the Noble Peace Prize end up sending the US into more never-ending conflicts?

These are important questions. But. . .

Even more important is how the United States and the world will be impacted – the broader implications. What effects will these actions have on the rest of the world’s relationship to the US? How will they support China’s drive toward global dominance? Will they serve to justify Russia’s imperialistic desires in Europe? Or China’s threats against Taiwan?

Every US president since WWII has used EHMs. But Trump is the first to become its embodiment – openly declaring what others whispered – turning covert strategy into spectacle and establishing his office as the first EHM presidency.

The goal of the EHM strategy has been to control the planet’s resources. The result has been to funnel money into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of the oligarchs. Our EHM mantra: If economic tactics don't work, send in the jackals.

All the sanctions and other economic policies failed to remove Maduro. So, the jackals went to work. The CIA stepped up its covert activities. When it deemed the time was right, a massive military maneuver was implemented. It was highly successful – at least, from a military standpoint.

In my EHM days, the resource we coveted most was oil. I’ve written extensively about tactics I and my associates employed in Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, – and yes, Venezuela. And, despite its declining importance in today’s economy, oil continues to be a justification offered by Trump. At his press conference, he stated that “very large United States oil companies” would fix Venezuela’s “badly broken oil infrastructure.” Then they would start pumping “a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground.”

Unlike explanations offered by other presidents for US invasions of Vietnam, Panama, Haiti, Granada, Iraq, and Afghanistan, this time we were not told that it was about combating communism or defending democracy. This was about oil – and to a lesser degree drug trafficking.

However, “Operation Absolute Resolve” was not just about oil or drugs. Nor was it merely an attempt to overthrow an illegitimate government. It was an extreme show of force reminiscent of those taken in the past by monarchs and emperors obsessed with demonstrating their personal power. It was a message – broadcast globally – that the rules of international order no longer constrain American power. In Trump’s words, “we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so." His actions and his words were intended to serve as a warning to leaders around the world: play the US’s EHM game or else. . .

We know from experience that if Venezuela becomes a precedent rather than an exception, the consequences will be dire. Expanding this strategy to other nations in the hemisphere will not stabilize the region or win friends – it will turn the region against us. Latin America’s history with US intervention is long, painful, and deeply remembered. Aggressive actions would almost certainly accelerate the region’s political and economic pivot toward China.

As I head South, I think about the threats made during the past week that are aimed at Colombia, Mexico, and Panama. I think about the huge US fleet of warships, planes, and troops in the Caribbean. I think about the interventionist fever sweeping through certain Washington circles. I wonder what I’ll hear from the people I’ll be visiting. I don’t know what they’ll tell me. But I do know from more than fifty years of living and working there that a mistake of historic proportions may be in the making.

Beijing has spent a decade building economic partnerships across the hemisphere while Washington wielded sanctions and threats. China has invested in infrastructure and trade deals. It has replaced the US as the number one trading partner in South America. It offers alternatives to financial systems once dominated by America. Now, its pitch has been made even more attractive by Operation Absolute Resolve. When faced with a choice between partnership with a power that respects sovereignty and one that overthrows governments at will, the decision becomes simpler. Every intervention drives Latin America deeper into China's arms.

The Venezuelan operation may have removed one criminal president. But if it becomes a template for American policy in the hemisphere, we will have traded a tactical victory for a strategic catastrophe.

If the United States wants to preserve influence in the Western Hemisphere, it must recognize that power demonstrated without restraint ultimately weakens itself.

The EHM strategy, once exposed and personalized, loses its effectiveness and legitimacy.