RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Taibbi writes: "The United States has just suspended flights to Venezuela. Per the New York Times, the United States banned all air transport with Venezuela on Wednesday over security concerns, further isolating the troubled South American nation..."

An anti-government protester dressed as Lady Liberty, wearing the colors of Venezuela's flag, hugs a fellow protester during a demonstration near La Carlota airbase in Caracas, Venezuela. Opposition leader Juan Guaidó is calling for Venezuelans to fill streets around the country Wednesday to demand President Nicolás Maduro's ouster. Maduro is also calling for his supporters to rally. (photo: Ariana Cubillos/Shutterstock)
An anti-government protester dressed as Lady Liberty, wearing the colors of Venezuela's flag, hugs a fellow protester during a demonstration near La Carlota airbase in Caracas, Venezuela. Opposition leader Juan Guaidó is calling for Venezuelans to fill streets around the country Wednesday to demand President Nicolás Maduro's ouster. Maduro is also calling for his supporters to rally. (photo: Ariana Cubillos/Shutterstock)

The Liberal Embrace of War

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

18 May 19

American interventionists learned a lesson from Iraq: pre-empt the debate. Now everyone is for regime change

he United States has just suspended flights to Venezuela. Per the New York Times:

CARACAS — The United States banned all air transport with Venezuela on Wednesday over security concerns, further isolating the troubled South American nation…

A disinterested historian — Herodotus raised from the dead — would see this as just the latest volley in a siege tale. America has been trying for ages to topple the regime of President Nicholas Maduro, after trying for years to do the same to his predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

The new play in the Trump era involves recognizing Juan Guaidó as president and starving and sanctioning the country. Maduro, encircled, has been resisting.

The American commercial news landscape, in schism on domestic issues, is in lockstep here. Every article is seen from one angle: Venezuelans under the heel of a dictator who caused the crisis, with the only hope a “humanitarian” intervention by the United States.

There is no other perspective. Media watchdog FAIR just released results of a study of three months of American opinion pieces. Out of 76 editorials in the New York Times, Washington Post, the “big three Sunday morning talk shows” or PBS News Hour, zero came out against the removal of Maduro. They wrote:

“Corporate news coverage of Venezuela can only be described as a full-scale marketing campaign for regime change.”

Allowable opinion on Venezuela ranges from support for military invasion to the extreme pacifist end of the spectrum, as expressed in a February op-ed by Dr. Francisco Rodriguez and Jeffrey Sachs called “An Urgent Call for Compromise in Venezuela”:

“We strongly urge… a peaceful and negotiated transition of power rather than a winner-take-all game of chicken…”

So we should either remove Maduro by force, or he should leave peaceably, via negotiation. These are the options.

After the disaster of Vietnam eons ago, American thought leaders became convinced we “lost” in Indochina because of — get this — bad PR.

The real lesson in Vietnam should have been that people would pay any price to overthrow a hated occupying force. American think-tankers and analysts however somehow became convinced (and amazingly still are) that the problem was Walter Cronkite and the networks giving up on the war effort.

Quietly then, over the course of decades, lobbyists pushed for changes. In the next big war, there would be no gruesome pictures of soldiers dying, no photos of coffins coming home, no pictures of civilian massacres (enforced more easily with new embedding rules), and no Cronkite-ian defeatism.

They got all of that by the time we went into Iraq. The TV landscape by then was almost completely sterilized. Jesse Ventura and Phil Donahue were pulled from MSNBC because they opposed invasion. Networks agreed not to film coffins or death scenes.

Yet the invasion of Iraq was a failure for the same reason Vietnam was a failure, and Libya was a failure, and Afghanistan is a failure, and Venezuela or Syria or Iran will be failures, if we get around to toppling regimes in those countries: America is incapable of understanding or respecting foreigners’ instinct for self-rule.

The pattern in American interventions has been the same for ages. We are for self-determination everywhere, until such self-determination clashes with a commercial or security objective.

A common triggering event for American-backed overthrows is a leader trying to nationalize the country’s resources. This is why we ended up replacing democratically-elected Mohammed Mossadeq with the Shah in Iran, for instance.

Disrupting trade is also a frequent theme in these ploys, with a late-Fifties coup attempt in Indonesia or our various Cuban embargoes key examples. The plan often involves stimulating economic and political unrest in target nations as a precursor for American intervention.

We inevitably end up propping up dictators of our own, and the too-frequent pattern now — vividly demonstrated in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan — is puppet states collapsing and giving way to power vacuums and cycles of sectarian violence. Thanks, America!

Opposing such policies used to be a central goal of American liberalism. No more. Since 2016, it’s been stunning to watch the purging and/or conversion of what used to be antiwar voices, to the point where Orwellian flip-flops are now routine.

Earlier this month, onetime fierce Iraq war opponent Rachel Maddow went on TV to embrace John Bolton in a diatribe about how the poor National Security Adviser has been thwarted by Trump in efforts to topple Maduro.

“Regardless of what you thought about John Bolton before this, his career, his track record,” Maddow said. “Just think about John Bolton as a human being.”

The telecast was surreal. It was like watching Dick Cheney sing “Give Peace a Chance.”

Bolton stood out as a bomb-humping nut even among the Bush-era functionaries who pushed us into Iraq. He’s the living embodiment of “benevolent hegemony,” an imperial plan first articulated in the nineties by neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan.

It involves forcefully overturning any regime that resisted us, to spread the wonders of the American way to, as Norman Podhoretz once put it, “as many others as have the will and the ability to enjoy them.”

When Bush gave his famed “Axis of Evil” speech about Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, Bolton — prophetically, it seemed — gave a speech called “Beyond the Axis of Evil,” adding Cuba, Syria and Libya to the list.

Bolton, of course, is also on board with regime change in Venezuela, saying “this is our hemisphere.” Echoing the sentiment, Alabama Democratic Senator Doug Jones said Maduro, and his allies in Russia, need to vacate “our part of the world.”

This has all been cast as opposition to Russian support of Maduro. Maddow was ostensibly reacting to triggering news that Trump was stepping back on Venezuelan action after a chat with Vladimir Putin.

This isn’t about Russia, however. MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post were open cheering sections even when it came to endorsing Trump’s original decision to recognize Guaidó. It’s been much the same script with Syria, too, where even the faintest hint of discomfort with the idea of regime change has been excised from public view.

The social media era has made it much easier to keep pundits in line. Propaganda is effective when it’s relentless, personal, attacking, and one-sided. The idea isn’t to debate people, but to create an “ick” factor around certain ideas, so debate is pre-empted.

Don’t want to invade Syria? Get ready to be denounced as an Assadist. Feel ambivalent about regime change in Venezuela? You must love Putin and Maduro.

People end up either reflexively believing these things, or afraid to deal with vitriol they’ll get if they say something off-narrative. In the media world, it’s understood that stepping out of line on Venezuela or Syria will result in being removed from TV guest lists, loss of speaking income, and other problems.

This has effectively made intellectual objections to regime change obsolete. In the Trump era, things that not long ago aroused widespread horror — from torture to drone assassination to “rendition” to illegal surveillance to extrajudicial detention in brutal secret prisons around the world — inspire crickets now.

A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran an exposé about Guantanamo Bay that should have been a devastating piece of journalism. It showed site officials building a hospice, because prisoners are expected to grow old and die rather than ever sniff release. One prisoner was depicted sitting gingerly in court because of “chronic rectal pain” from being routinely sodomized in CIA prisons.

Ten years ago, Americans would have been deeply ashamed of such stories. Now, even liberals don’t care. The cause of empire has been cleverly re-packaged as part of #Resistance to Trump, when in fact it’s just the same old arrogance, destined to lead to the same catastrophes. Bad policy doesn’t get better just because you don’t let people talk about it.

Email This Page your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+21 # apotem 2019-05-18 18:41
How many Democrats opposed Patriot Act, war with Afganistan, invasion of Iraq etc? Just asking.
+30 # wrknight 2019-05-18 21:00
There are a few liberals who still care, Matt. I care big time. I don't like it and I am ashamed that our country has stooped to such low levels. It is not only shameful, it will destroy thousands of lives and untold damage to property. It is disastrous to the environment and it is bankrupting our nation.

I support S.3517 a bill introduced in the Senate by Tom Udall (D NM) that specifically prohibits Trump from taking military action in Iran. That bill should be expanded to include all other countries on Bolton's shit

For those of you who care, I urge you to contact your members of Congress and insist they support S.3517. (If you wish to read the bill itself, you can find it at
+1 # trimegestus 2019-05-20 14:58
Thanks wrknight. This is news we can use today. I will call and Email my Senators in Pennsylvania. RSN readers, see for the contact info of your Senators.
+28 # PABLO DIABLO 2019-05-18 21:00
Maybe we should go back to teaching people HOW to think instead of WHAT to think.
+10 # DongiC 2019-05-19 00:20
America seems unable to give up its role as emperor of the world and ultimate decider of which government is proper for a certain country. Naturally, nations resent this invasion of their sovereignty and some resist our influence by force of arms. This leads to costly wars at a time when other priorities clamor for attention: defense of the planet, repairing our infrastructure, providing decent medical care for all our citizens, aid to education, preserving the environment, responding to the problem of plastics everywhere.

Time to shift our priorities away from military conflict to that of peace. The armed forces should be diminished as well as the vast fortunes we allocate to its inflated budgets. Time to make peace not war and find other means to prop up our economy. The day of the arms manufacturers is over at last.
+12 # EternalTruth 2019-05-19 08:45
“The day of the arms manufacturers is over at last.”

I love optimists.

With climate change accelerating, and all the problems this will create, the arms manufacturers are going to be more powerful than ever. I hope hope hope I’m wrong. My votes go to the candidates with the most radical plans to combat climate change, and the most drastic withdrawal of US troops and arms from the world. But they ain’t gonna win til we wrest the power away from ruling cabal.

I’m depressing myself. I’m gonna go watch the mid-May CA lightning storm.
+18 # janie1893 2019-05-19 00:29
Thank you Matt for this article. You verbalize the problem very clearly. It seems to almost be
a collective mental compulsion for a whole herd of Americans to believe that the US can have at any nation it wishes to and that the US can do a better job at governing than any other political group can. Looking at the way The US is being led and administered at present, one has to wonder what is in the drinking water in the lower 48!!
+14 # EternalTruth 2019-05-19 08:50
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands”

The brainwashing starts early.
+17 # Ralph 2019-05-19 14:11
I can't even watch the news anymore. This nation has become a bad joke. Until the left in this nation grows a spine, the decline will continue. Disgraceful.
+6 # harleysch 2019-05-19 14:53
Excellent article again by Matt. He could have added that among those regimes which our national media, including Rachel Maddow, wish to change is that of Trump in the U.S., using the Russian bogeyman. Many of those who continue to support regime change as a policy, including among "progressives", are angry that the Trump-Putin discussion may have put the brakes on a U.S. military operation in Venezuela.

Interesting also that there is resistance to the Bolton-Abrams crew coming from the U.S. military, which is not interested in a Bay of Pigs fiasco. Maybe the Military-Indust rial Complex does not include all the military!
+10 # librarian1984 2019-05-20 01:36
I hope anyone who still trusts Rachel Maddow had their eyes opened by her 'surreal embrace' of John Bolton.

I used to admire her so much, but $30,000 a day bought her off.
+11 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-05-20 09:28
librarian -- I wonder how many people are even aware or even shocked by Maddow's embrace of Bolton. I learned about it from the Jimmy Dore show. I was shocked. MSNBC is committed to war and the neo-cons. Maddow is doing what she is paid to do.

Not even Judas got 30,000.
+9 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-05-20 09:11
This is really good. Along with this check out Craig Murray's new article at Consortiumnews. org. He opens with --

"There is no conceivable interest of the ordinary people of the Western world being served by the crazed decision of their governments to firmly take the Sunni side in the Sunni/Shia tensions of the Islamic world, and to do so in a fashion which deliberately exacerbates points of armed conflict across the Middle East.

It is even more extraordinary that, in doing so, the West is deliberately forwarding the interests of two nations that have philosophies that are entirely antithetical to the supposed tenets of Western philosophy. Those states are Saudi Arabia, an unrepentant despotism, which promotes and finances a theocratic ideology directly responsible for the major terrorist attacks on the West, and Israel, which is now an openly apartheid state. . . .

Of course the patent absurdities of the alliance point directly to the fact that the real motive is entirely different; this is all about the financial ties of the 1 percent and the permanent interest of the military industrial complex."

So much for "western democracy." Our governments serve the 1% and the military-indust rial-banking-Is raeli-Saudi-com plex. The people can be damned.
+1 # bsimpich 2019-05-20 14:20
We can build a new antiwar movement. That is what it is going to take.

It has to be based on human needs and a focus on ending the empire-mentalit y of the United States - which includes the Rachel Maddow liberals and the John Bolton conservatives.
+5 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-05-20 17:07
bdimpch -- yes, this is important. Tulsi Gabbard is the leading anti-war candidate and she sets up the issue in the right way. Sanders is good too.

This time the anti-war movement will be much different from that of the 1960s or of the 1910s or any prior movement. There is no draft to make colleges students care. And presidents have uncontrolled power to go to war at will. And the power of Israel and Saudi Arabia linked with US corporations is unprecedented.

I would think that totally ending the GWOT should be a litmus test for any candidate in the 2020 elections. We should draft an anti-GWOT pledge.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.