|
over "free trade for the rich" vs. Oil War II: South America.
"Free trade for the rich" in Colombia, for instance, is VERY IMPORTANT to Hillary Clinton, while a new oil source to fuel its great war machine is VERY IMPORTANT to the Pentagon. It's easy to see how these differing priorities could work together, with a well-fueled war machine enforcing "free trade for the rich," but it may not be so easy to see conflicts and tensions among the multinational corporations and war profiteers who rule over us. For some, war is a drag. For others, it is a boon. Some are more sensitive to democracy cosmetics. Others don't give a fuck. And a "third rail" in this scene is of course the protected big drug operations which likely have beneficiaries that we cannot see (for instance, the CIA and the Bush Cartel).
It's important to mention, up front, the utter HYPOCRISY of all of these entities--the U.S. government itself and those who are really running it (the multinational corporations, war profiteers and the big drugs/weapons dealers). That said, they are not always necessarily "on the same page."
Uribe suddenly charging Chavez with harboring the FARC/ELN, in Uribe's last weeks in office, is a bit alarming, since that is very likely a long planned trigger for the Pentagon's war plan against Venezuela (and probably Ecuador). On the other hand, to appearances anyway, there is nobody who is more "the Pentagon's boy" than Santos. In fact, I was pretty sure that the Pentagon/CIA dumped Uribe, and installed Santos, as the preliminary to war. (Former Defense Minister) Santos has seemed like a leashed attack dog, chafing at the bit to attack Venezuela, assassinate Chavez, kill all the leftists and become Oil King of South America. Uribe, on the other hand, has in the past been a bit more sensitive (or has seemed so) to Latin American opinion. Criminal though he is, he seemed more of a "civilian" in this respect.
It just occurred to me that this conflict (Uribe vs Santos) could be orchestrated--i.e., Uribe planting the seed of the war trigger, as a parting payment to Washington (in exchange for immunity from prosecution, like Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld got?). Santos saying that he "may ask" Garzon to consult could be merely a threat to keep Uribe in line, to keep him silent and to get him to do things like this. (I think there is mutual blackmail going on between Uribe and the CIA, and MANY dreadful "skeletons in the closet" that Uribe is holding as his "chips." He also no doubt has "chips" on Santos, who was his Defense Minister during much of the slaughter of the last decade.)
But Chavez's statements give me pause, as to this analysis. You'd think he would be more fearful of Santos than Uribe, as to triggering a U.S.-funded/instigated war. It's possible that, if this is an orchestrated Uribe-Santos scenario, that Chavez knows that it is orchestrated and is trying to drive a wedge between them--or, maybe more likely, that Chavez knows that Santos is only pretending to threaten Uribe with prosecution to get Uribe to do his and the Pentagon's bidding. This latter does make sense as to both Chavez's statements and action--breaking off diplomatic relations, after having negotiated several economic deals with Colombia (and Uribe), doing so just as Uribe leaves and just as Santos comes in. Uribe is treacherous, to be sure. But Santos is so plugged in to the Pentagon and our war profiteers that he surely poses a far greater threat of war than Uribe ever did--and surely Chavez knows this.
Chavez saying to Santos, "break away from Uribe," may be Chavez's way of "living with" this CIA-installed leader of Colombia (Santos). His way of handling Uribe was somewhat similar (appealing to loyalty to Latin America, vs the gringos). It's also good diplomacy in that it gives Santos a retreat position. He can blame these false charges on Uribe and back away from them. Santos is an even more virulent militarist than Uribe--if the past is any guide--BUT--back to the possible divisions among our common multinational/war profiteer rulers--perhaps Santos has made a deal with Clinton (via Leon Panetta's visit in the spring, amidst rumors of a Uribe coup to stay in power?) to do a "Honduras"--democracy cosmetics to get the "free trade for the rich" deal through the U.S. Congress--and postponement of the Oil War (perhaps until Diebold/ES&S ousts Obama and installs Bush Junta II). Uribe's outburst (against Venezuela) could be just more laying of the ground work for the future war; and could be simultaneously cover for something else--perhaps some pending disclosure from the Left of Uribe treachery or crime, or something that would compromise his CIA protection plan. (The "magic laptop" comes to mind.) One other possibility--that someone (the CIA? Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans-in-exile?) is feeding Uribe false intelligence. Is he in on it, or is he reading from a script?
Speaking of the CIA and Rumsfeld's OSP, this is one evidence that our corporate rulers are not always on "the same page." It seems pretty clear that Rumsfeld started a war with the CIA, probably over Rumsfeld's plan to nuke Iran, and got ousted because of it. (He's my pick for the operational manager of the Plame/Brewster-Jennings outings). Important military brass opposed his plan and I think joined with the (furious) CIA, with Daddy Bush/Leon Panetta (i.e., the "Iraq Study Group") and possibly others, to oust Rumsfeld and de-fang Cheney for the remainder of Junior's term. The military brass may have felt that there was too much risk (at least at that point) of nuclear powers China and Russia coming into it. Junior was in big trouble with the CIA. Thus, this coalition, circa 2006, to rescue his ass, which probably included Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi (the deal being immunity for the major players).
"Not always on the same page." Obama announces a new policy of "peace, respect and cooperation" in Latin America, and the next thing that happens is a U.S. supported rightwing coup in Honduras and then the dreadful, VERY EXPENSIVE, secretly negotiated U.S./Colombia military agreement (basically arranging a U.S. military occupation of Colombia)--with many hints of deep policy conflicts (or of astounding Obama hypocrisy) within the bowels of the U.S. "military-industrial complex." Similar policy conflicts appear to be occurring re Iraq and Afghanistan (not so much Iran). Hostility to the Chavez government and to Latin American democracy (real democracy, that is) has been consistent, from Bush Junta to now. But there may be some serious methods and timing conflicts. Uribe and Santos are both tools of the U.S. We shouldn't take anything they say or do at face value. We should look for the puppetmasters pulling the strings, to understand what's really going on--that is, extrapolate backwards to the source. This is a caution. They might sometimes act independently but I think that would be rare, especially on anything to do with Venezuela and Chavez (also Ecuador and Correa).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
