Why does Venezuela look so much like Nicaragua (1950s), Iran (1953), and Cuba (1960s)? Because, according to Stephen Kinzer (The Brothers) "Allen Dulles, head of the CIA was "indeed a thing apart." With the approval of Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles, gave 'Kim' Roosevelt an assignment never before given to an American intelligence officer: carte blanche to "overthrow a government"--beginning with Iran 1953. President "Mossadegh was a trusting soul, unwise to the ways of the covert world, and never imagined that a CIA officer was in Iran directing" his overthrow. "He presumed that the shah had been behind it, and with the shah gone the danger was past. He relaxed security restrictions and released prisoners"--and the rest is (American denied) history.
Lothrop Stoddard (The Rising Tide of Color) gives an answer to why the CIA destroys democratically elected governments worldwide, especially in Latin America. "The menace of Bolshevism (Communism) is simply incalculable. Bolshevism is a peril in some ways unprecedented in the world's history. It is not merely a war against a social system, not merely a war against our civilization; it is a war of the hand against the brain. ...Bolshevism's cardinal tenets--the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the destruction of the 'classes' by social war--are of truly hideous import. The 'classes,' as conceived by Bolshevism, are very numerous. ...
Bolshevism has vowed the proletarianization of the world, beginning with the white peoples. To this end it not only foments social revolution within the white world itself, but it also seeks to enlist the colored races in its grand assault on civilization. The rulers of Soviet Russia are well aware of the profound ferment now going on in colored lands. ...
Accordingly, in every quarter of the globe, in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the United states, Bolshevik agitators whisper in the ears of discontented colored men their gospel of hatred and revenge. Every nationalist aspiration, every political grievance, every social discrimination, is fuel for Bolshevism's hellish incitement to racial as well as to class war.
And this Bolshevik propaganda has not been in vain. Its results already show in the most diverse quarters, and they are ominous for the future. China, Japan, Afghanistan, India, Java, Persia, Turkey, Egypt, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Mexico, and the 'black belts' of our own United States: here is a partial list of the lands where the Bolshevik leaven in color is clearly at work.
Bolshevism thus reveals itself as the arch-enemy of civilization and the race. Bolshevism is the renegade, the traitor within the gates, who would betray the citadel, degrade the very fiber of our being, and ultimately hurl a re-barbarized, racially impoverished world into the most debased and hopeless of mongrelizations.
Therefore, Bolshevism must be crushed out with iron heels, no matter what the cost. If this means more war, let it mean more war. We know only too well war's dreadful toll particularly on racial values. But what war-losses could compare with the losses inflicted by the living death of Bolshevism? There are some things worse than war, and Bolshevism stands foremost among those dread alternatives.
Weakened and impoverished by [WWI]; handicapped by an unconstructive peace, and facing internal Bolshevist disaffection which must at all costs be mastered, the white world is ill-prepared to confront--the rising tide of color."
Kinzer posits, "Eisenhower wrote in his diary that Mossadegh's fall had been a 'serious defeat' for the Soviets--"Genuinely [believing] that Russia was poised to enter Iran in 1953, and that only the CIA had prevented a Communist victory."
Guatemala's downfall was similar to Iran (1953) President Truman--defending the interest of United Fruit, "authorized initial planning for a CIA coup. Thomas McCann recalled, "Guatemala's government was the region's weakest, most corrupt, and most pliable, then something went wrong: a man named Jacobo Arbenz became president."
On March 15, 1951, Arbenz stood before a cheering crowd and in his inaugural address committed himself to "three fundamental objectives: to convert our country from a dependent nation with a semi-colonial economy to an economically independent country. To convert Guatemala from a backward country with a predominantly feudal economy into a modern capitalist state; and to make this transformation in a way that will raise the standard of living of the great mass of our people. . . .Foreign capital will always be welcome as long as it adjusts to local conditions, remains always subordinate to Guatemalan laws, cooperates with economic development of the country, and strictly abstains from intervening in the nation's social and political life."
"Short of proclaiming himself a Bolshevik, Arbenz could have said little that would so effectively provoke the wrath of Americans committed to defending transnational capitalism."
Once Eisenhower was elected and "chose Foster and Allen Dulles to design and carry out his foreign policy, the die was cast. Arbenz became the second monster [after Mossadegh] they went abroad to destroy."
Castro's Cuba was up next, but the CIA "had enough experience to recognize the considerable differences between Guatemala in 1954 and Cuba in 1960."
However, "one of Castro's closest comrades, the Argentine-born guerrilla Che Guevara, had been in Guatemala in 1954 and witnessed the coup against Arbenz. Later he told Castro why it succeeded. He said Arbenz had foolishly tolerated an open society, which the CIA penetrated and subverted, and also preserved the existing army, which the CIA turned into its instrument. Castro agreed that a revolutionary regime in Cuba must avoid those mistakes. Upon taking power, he cracked down on dissent and purged the army. Many Cubans supported his regime and were ready to defend it. All of this made the prospect of deposing him daunting [and impossible]."
Both Chavez and Maduro made Arbenz's sociopolitical mistakes as is now evident in Venezuela's fall to CIA machinations.
MIRROR--MIRROR: THE CIA STRIKES AGAIN
Americans see themselves as benevolent overlords, concerned with "human rights & the rule of law." In reality the United States is an imperial--neocolonialist nation, which Solomon (War Made Easy) attests: the US is "careful to downplay or bypass the "horrendous deeds of allies" violation of human rights and the rule of law, "such as Turkey." Jack Woddis (An Introduction to Neo-Colonialism) explains that for the United States, the method of controlling a country without exercising direct political rule [neocolonialism] has been a long-standing one. For decades American imperialism pulled the strings in Liberia, determined its policies and ran its economy. The entire constitutional system was modeled on that of the United States, and the Liberian currency was based on the dollar.
It was above all in Latin America, however, that the United States fashioned and practiced this tactic. Outwardly Mexicans ruled Mexico, Venezuelans ruled Venezuela" and so on. And it was the same in all twenty Latin American republics. Outwardly they were independent--and constitutionally speaking they were independent in fact. But real power was not in the hands of the people of these countries. It resided firmly in Wall Street and Washington, acting through a most fearsome and corrupt brood of dictators, cum presidents."
United States ambassadors have acted as all-powerful monarchs, [viceroys], Imposing their 'advice' on nominally independent governments. This economic and political power has been backed up by military power, U.S. military services and instructors often playing a key role in the military services of the Latin American countries, which are tied to military aid programs, agreements and alliances.
Before 1945 disguised forms of colonial domination were only practiced in a minority of territories, mainly in Latin America, and only partially in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Today however, so headlong has been the retreat of direct colonial rule that it can be said that neo-colonialism has now become the dominant form and is no longer the exception.
The term, in fact, though it describes a strategy of imperialism and not a new stage, can only be understood as a strategy which has become predominant in a particular new phase of imperialism.
The U.S. sponsored Alliance for Progress for Latin America has equally proved to be a means of increasing the exploitation of a continent in the interests of foreign capital. For decades, Latin America has been a major source of profit for the big U.S. monopolies. Up to the end of the First World War, these firms were concerned to establish their control in Latin America--and the Marines were always at their disposal for this purpose. Capital-exports in this period were relatively small, since a modest investment in mining or plantations yielded extraordinarily large profits. After 1920 the big hunt for oil began. Rockefeller Standard Oil Company pushed its way into Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico. Wars fought between Latin American states in order to oust British oil interest and make Latin America an exclusive hinterland for Standard Oil.
It was after 1945, however, that the major increase in U.S. investments took place in Latin America, and this was even more so after 1950. These investments were directed particularly to oil, and to the new manufacturing industries which have been established since the end of WWII. By 1964 oil and manufacturing accounted for 61 percent of U.S. direct investment in Latin America.
This big economic push by the United States was accompanied by new series of political interventions intended to produce regimes amenable to American policies. After 1948, the attack on the democratic movements in Latin America was launched. In one country after another military coups took place, and the era of the 'guerrilla' began. It has been estimated that in the first fifteen years after the war there were no less than sixty putsches in Latin America, [which eventually led to the vast movement of juvenile refugees on the Texas border].
The victory of the Cuban revolution in 1959 ushered in a new stage in the history of the Latin American people. America's climb down after the missile crisis of 1962, and the radical economic and social changes introduced in the new Cuba, all had a most powerful impact throughout the Latin American continent.
Supporters of the Alliance for Progress have themselves revealed its real purposes. Dean Rusk has written that the Alliance 'rests on the concept that this Hemisphere is part of Western Civilization which we are pledged to defend.' Teodoro Moscoso, former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela, later head of the Latin American program of the Agency for International Development, and then chief of the Alliance for Progress, has stated quite candidly: 'In supporting the alliance, members of the traditional ruling class will have nothing to fear . . . The Alliance deserves their support, for is it not a call to their conscience and patriotism and at the same time their very means of self-defense?' The former Venezuelan president, Romulo Betancourt, who was a favorite of the U.S. State Department, has stated in defense of the Alliance: 'We must help the poor in order to save the rich.'
In other words, the Alliance, even in its original aims, was a no-colonialist device for forestalling revolutionary change. Its intentions, in fact, were counter-revolutionary.
Because the Alliance for Progress was not predicated on fundamental change, but had the limited aim of patching up the system so as to safeguard American economic and political interests, [in] its six year of operation [having] resulted in a worsening of crisis in Latin America.
The very failure of the Alliance for Progress has led the United States to make a new attempt to press ahead with its military plans for counter-revolution in Latin-America. These plans have been maturing over several years, and take two main forms: moves to establish counter-guerrilla forces, and the creation of a Continental military force for Latin America controlled by the United States.
The former, commonly known as the U.S. counter-insurgency program, goes officially by the name of "Special Warfare," for which a section of the Defense Department has been established. By June 1963, according to a speech by Robert Kennedy, 57,000 U.S. government officials were being trained in counter-insurgency courses. The main special Warfare Center [renamed: School of the Americas] is at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Here, in addition to training U.S. personnel, courses are organized for selected trainees from the Latin American countries and other foreign states. Five special schools for Latin Americans alone are also maintained in the Panama Canal Zone, under the direct control of the United States Caribbean Command Headquarters. In addition, there is an Inter-American Defense College for Latin American army officers.
Already, in 1965, the U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic showed that, alongside the verbal chatter of reforms by means of the Alliance for Progress, the U.S. was prepared to use direct military force wherever the reforms threatened to be radical enough to challenge the existing structure of feudalism and imperialist exploitation It was at that time that the U.S. president pronounced his doctrine that 'the American nation cannot, must not, and will not permit the establishment of another Communist government in the Western Hemisphere' (May 2, 1965). Considering that the issue at stake in the Dominican Republic was not communism but independence and democracy, the Johnson Doctrine was clearly directed against any fundamental change in Latin America. At the same time, the direct intervention by U.S. troops in the Dominican Republic led to such an outcry that the Pentagon was driven to intensify its efforts to create an Inter-American force for use in similar circumstances in the future. The name, Inter-American Force, was, in fact, given subsequently to the U.S. marines sent to the Dominican Republic. To make it a little more plausible, four Latin American countries were persuaded to send small contingents to do duty alongside the preponderantly U.S. troops.
Outwardly, the Inter-American Force is intended to appear as a mainly Latin-American military formation, but in reality it will be run by the United States. Under the cover of the Inter-American Force the U.S. will be able to continue its role of intervention and counter-revolution.
Major-General Max S. Johnson (retired), former planning officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has explained the role of the United States in such a military grouping in an article in U.S. News and World Report:
"Any Inter-American Command set up to prevent the spread of communism in this Hemisphere would almost certainly have to be commanded by a U.S. officer of high rank, with perhaps 98 percent of the military means, as well, furnished by the United States."
PLANS FOR A TWO-FRONT WAR
Lt. General Michael T. Flynn and Michael Ledeen in The Field Of Fight (2016) broadcast plans for a Two-Front War: The Middle East and Latin American, singling out Venezuela for special treatment. Flynn and Ledeen insists "an international alliance of evil countries and movements that is working to destroy us. ... The war is on. We face a working coalition that extends from North Korea and China to Russia, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua."
"Once we bailed out of Iraq in 2011, the power of the Islamic Republic immediately expanded and rapidly filled the void left by our departure. The mullahs have already established strategic alliances in our own hemisphere with Cuba and Venezuela, and are working closely with Russia and China; a victory over the 'Great Satan' in Iraq will compel the smaller Middle Eastern countries to come to terms with Tehran, and make the region much ore inhospitable to us and our friends and allies. All of this can be accomplished without atomic bombs--the issue that dominates the policy debate over Iran throughout the West.'"
Flynn & Ledeen insist, "It won't be easy ... [but] we know how to win this war. We've done it before, notably in the [WWII] and then the Cold war against the messianic mass movements of the twentieth century, Nazism, Fascism, and Communism.
In an act of ethnocentrism, Flynn & Ledeen profess that "Removing the sickening choke-hold of tyranny, dictatorships, and Radical Islamist regimes must be something our nation stands for whenever freedom-loving people around the world need help. If we don't stand for this, we stand for nothing." However, Latin Americans would argue with all the premises submitted by Flynn and Ledeen from their previous history of being invaded and murdered by the United States "good intentions."