The attacks on the drug boats (is anybody still thinking they're fishing boats?) were, in this view, attacks on a non-state hostile actor. I gather that there's actually a fair bit of analysis on the subject of war against non-state actors, but I'm nowhere near expert enough to comment on that aspect.
An alternative interpretation, not based on official pronouncement ("Believe nothing until it has been officially denied"), is that Venezuela's ties with Iran are the key. I've run across rumors that Venezuela has been transporting people and munitions into the US on Iran's behalf. The "transport" part of that is plausible whether Maduro is a drug lord or an Iran ally; the "on Iran's behalf" isn't proven.
But if that was the reason, why not say so? The usual claim is "that compromises sources," but unless the sources were very high up in Iran I'd think this and the nuke facility strikes would be enough for them to try to clean house anyway.
I don't understand what the indictment is for. If Maduro is subject to US laws (e.g. possession of machine guns), then by symmetry I am subject to British law regarding what type of knife I'm allowed to have and to Saudi law for expressing my judgment that Muhammad was a false prophet.
Just no. Let's not admit that kind of precedent.
I really really do not want us to be responsible for running Venezuela. Probably a fair bit of house-cleaning is going to be required to get the presumed gangsters/Iranian partisans out of the positions they've been stuffed in--but I don't think we're the best people to winkle them out.
I wonder how brittle our PowersThatBe think the regime is?
No comments:
Post a Comment