Sunday, January 4, 2026

Trumpezuelian Invasion -- Nothing New - Congressional Approval? Give me a break - A Bit of History

Anti-Trump pundits and Marjorie Taylor Green whine about how Trump is violating America first which he ran on -- they don't get it - he meant the entire North and South America First. Look for a name change for Venezuela, in gold leaf. Maybe Trump sees Putin being popular after starting a war and thinks he can turn around his numbers.

Remember United States invasion of Grenada in the 80s?

Maurice Bishop, who sought to prioritise socio-economic development, education and true black liberation, was murdered:  Too much collectivism, not enough dog-eat-dog rugged individualism. Funny thing is Mamdani wants to put Bibbi in the same place. They could room with Luigi.
1898–1935: The United States launched multiple minor interventions into Latin America, resulting in U.S. military presence in Cuba, Honduras, Panama (via the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty and Isthmian Canal Commission), Haiti (1915–1935), the Dominican Republic (1916–1924) and Nicaragua (1912–1925) & (1926–1933).  
This goes way beyond Epstein

Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026
 
Consider this post a history lesson. I've become a political junkie -- no more sports for me - politics is the real sport. I spend too much of the day listening to podcasts.
 
I am having trouble focusing on UFT politics and Unity Trump-like behavior. UFT and oppo politics is getting boring. The Delegate Assembly is blah and the RTC Meetings are getting close to blah with the RTC leadership not fighting back against Unity to my satisfaction, though both meetings are opportunities for social interaction. I'm also in close touch with the ABC and former ICE crew, which I will write more the great in-person meeting we had last week with about 15 people.
 
I'm not justifying or endorsing the Trump invasion(s), as so many Dems are doing, just putting them into historical context. Trump, like most presidents, has to pull a Putin and invade somewhere. His invasion is an endorsement of sorts for Putin's invasion of Ukraine due to Russian sphere of influence. And gives China justification for invading Taiwan. Since Trump is incapable of standing up to both of them, he decides to do what they do --- pick on the weak locally. He stays out of their spheres.
 
Anti-Trump pundits and Marjorie Taylor Green, who actually is making some sense, whine about how Trump is violating America first which he ran on -- they don't get it - he meant the entire North and South America First.
 
The Trump agenda: Panama canal, Canada 51st state -- Israel an exception, is the de-facto 51st state. How about Greenland? And next to come Cuba and Columbia? Trumpies don't have to worry about the left in Argentina and Chile and pretty much the west coast of South America. Only Columbia and Brazil is left and too big to invade but isolation would be a goal. In Central, maybe Nicaragua which is quasi left with another dictator.
 
Nations run by the left are always a danger to capitalists -- what next? Invade NYC and deport Zohran? Only if he's successful.
 
All the hand-ringing and rending of garments, as if this Venezuela thing is something new. How many times have we sent troops or intervened in Haiti, Nicaragua, the DR, wars with Mexico? This is not about the Monroe Doctrine, which was directed at European intervention in our "sphere." 
 
The war of 1848 and the invasion of Mexico, which brought us Texas, unfortunately.  Remember how France tried to take over Mexico during the Civil War when we were otherwise engaged?
 
Any leftist government led to neocon dreams of regime change. This was not just Republicans but both parties. Vietnam anyone? Some think Kennedy was killed because he was going to pull out of Vietnam and as retaliation for not supporting the Bay of Pigs.  I don't believe the son of Joe Kennedy would be an anti-imperialist.

Almost every president since McKinley has pretty much had to invade somewhere to establish tough guy bona fides. Some Dem presidents were only marginally better. 

The Dem response has been so weak -- let us vote to endorse the Trump intervention. Dems are OK with regime change if they can vote YES as they did with Iraq. And remember the murder of Patrice Lumumba? And Dag Hammerschold? I'm old and was a political junkie in HS.
 
Dem President Wilson forced us to get involved in WW1 and people were put in jail for opposing the war. I did a blog on him:  Woodrow Wilson: The More We Know About the History of the Democratic Party, the Sicker They Look
 
Only FDR seemed to change policy toward Latin America but I'd bet there were some hidden factors and some interventions. From AI:
Key Aspects of FDR's Approach:
  • Ending Military Occupations: FDR withdrew U.S. Marines from Haiti (1934) and Nicaragua, and renounced the right to intervene unilaterally in internal affairs.
  • Respecting Sovereignty: The policy, articulated in his 1933 inaugural address, pledged the U.S. to be a "good neighbor" that respected others' rights.
  • Economic Cooperation: The focus shifted to promoting trade agreements and economic partnerships, aiming to build goodwill.
  • Abrogating Interventionist Clauses: The U.S. abrogated the Platt Amendment, which had allowed intervention in Cuba
  • Examples of Continued Influence (Interference)
    Despite the official stance of non-intervention, the FDR administration used diplomatic and economic pressure to shape Latin American outcomes: 
  • Cuba (1933): Assistant Secretary of State Sumner Welles orchestrated the resignation of Cuban dictator Gerardo Machado. When a revolutionary government followed, FDR withheld diplomatic recognition, which indirectly led to the rise of Fulgencio Batista.
  • Economic Diplomacy: The administration used the Export-Import Bank and reciprocal trade agreements to tie Latin American economies more closely to the U.S..
  • World War II Security: During the war, the U.S. pressured nearly every Latin American nation (except initially Argentina) to align with the Allies, crack down on Axis sympathizers, and provide strategic materials. 
Reagan used the excuse of protecting American medical students to cover for the real reason: 
 
Following the execution of Marxist Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and the seizure of power by hardline Marxists, the U.S. cited imminent danger to approximately 1,000 American citizens, many studying medicine, fearing they could become hostages. 
Containing Soviet/Cuban Influence:
Grenada, under Bishop and then the new regime, had growing ties with Cuba and the USSR, with a large airport under construction by Cuban engineers. Reagan feared this could become a Soviet military base in the Caribbean, challenging U.S. dominance
 
The United States has been involved in hundreds of interventions in foreign countries throughout its history, engaging in nearly 400 military interventions between 1776 and 2026, with half of these operations occurring since 1950 and over 25% occurring in the post-Cold War period.[1] 
----- 
U.S. intervention in the Americas spans from 19th-century expansionism (Monroe Doctrine, Mexican-American War) to 20th-century Cold War actions, often driven by strategic/economic interests, with
congressional approval varying significantly; while formal declarations of war are rare (e.g., Mexico 1846, Spain 1898), the War Powers Resolution of 1973, requiring President notification and limiting troop deployment without Congress's authorization, emerged from Vietnam-era conflicts where presidents acted without explicit approval, leading to ongoing tension over executive vs. legislative war powers. 
 
Early Interventions (19th Century)
  • Monroe Doctrine (1823): Asserted U.S. opposition to European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere, setting a precedent for U.S. regional influence.
  • Manifest Destiny & Expansion: Driven by economic opportunity and continental ambition, leading to conflicts like the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), where Congress declared war.
  • Punitive Expeditions: The U.S. Navy conducted numerous interventions, often involving Marines, for protecting trade or punishing actions, such as in Sumatra or Argentina. 
Rise of U.S. Hegemony (Late 19th - Early 20th Century)
  • Spanish-American War (1898): A formal declaration of war by Congress following the sinking of the USS Maine, resulting in U.S. control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
  • Roosevelt Corollary (1904): Expanded the Monroe Doctrine, justifying U.S. intervention in Latin American countries to prevent instability and European debt collection. 
20th Century & Cold War Interventions
  • "Big Stick" Diplomacy & Banana Wars: Numerous interventions (e.g., Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic) to protect U.S. interests, often without formal declarations, blurring lines of power.
  • World Wars: The U.S. entered WWI and WWII following Congressional declarations, joining global conflicts.
  • Cold War Era: Interventions in Latin America (e.g., Guatemala, Chile, Grenada) often supported anti-communist forces, with varied congressional involvement, sometimes covertly (Iran-Contra affair). 
Post-Vietnam Era & The War Powers Resolution (1973)
  • Context: Secret bombings in Cambodia and prolonged Vietnam conflict without formal declarations spurred Congress to act.
  • Key Provisions: Requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into hostilities and mandates withdrawal after 60-90 days unless Congress authorizes the action or declares war.
  • Ongoing Debate: Presidents have often bypassed or interpreted the Resolution loosely, citing funding as implicit approval, highlighting the persistent struggle over war powers. 
Contemporary Examples
  • Panama (1989): Invasion to depose Noriega, authorized under different legal frameworks, bypassing typical WPR procedures.
  • Syria (2017): Missile strikes occurred without explicit Congressional authorization, sparking debate over the Resolution's application
The U.S. has imposed regime change in the Americas numerous times, beginning with overt military actions in the early 20th century (like in Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua) and shifting to covert CIA-backed coups during the Cold War (e.g., Guatemala 1954, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973), often citing anti-communism or protecting U.S. interests, with historical examples also including the 1893 overthrow of Hawaii's monarchy
. These interventions, ranging from direct invasions to clandestine operations, have occurred across Latin America and the Caribbean for over a century. 
Key Examples in Latin America & Caribbean:
  • Cuba (Early 20th Century): Multiple interventions and occupations to install or support governments favorable to U.S. interests during the "Banana Wars".
  • Mexico (1914): Invasion of Veracruz to oust President Victoriano Huerta during the Mexican Revolution.
  • Dominican Republic (1916-1924): Eight-year military occupation to force government reforms.
  • Guatemala (1954): CIA-organized coup overthrew President Jacobo Arbenz, who enacted land reforms affecting U.S. business.
  • Brazil (1964): CIA supported the coup that deposed President João Goulart.
  • Chile (1973): U.S. involvement in the coup that overthrew democratically elected President Salvador Allende.
  • Grenada (1983): U.S. invasion to prevent a Marxist government from consolidating power.
  • Panama (1989): U.S. invasion to depose military dictator Manuel Noriega. 
Other Notable Cases:
  • Hawaii (1893): Overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani by U.S.-backed businessmen, leading to annexation.  
 ------
December 18, 2025

The United States’ Hidden History of Regime Change—Revisited

The truculent trio—Trump, Hegseth, and Rubio—do Venezuela.

Barbara Koeppel
 

Since the early 20th century, the United States has commandeered coups around the world, helping opposition figures and their mutinous militaries topple leaders whose policies they abhor. Why? These heads of state launched programs to redistribute land; strengthen labor unions, health and education systems; and nationalize industries. Washington insists they are “communist” or “socialist” and will threaten American dominance and corporate interests.

In the good old days, the hanky-panky was hidden, since the United States signed both the United Nations and Organization of American States charters, which stated that forced regime change was illegal.

But by the 1990s, US politicos scrapped the secrecy and told it like it was. For example, right-wing thinkers such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan, pilots of the Project for a New American Century, had no qualms writing a 1998 New York Times op-ed about the US and Iraq: They insisted that the US should overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime “to ensure America’s greatness.”

Since then, everything has been on the table. Along with Kristol and Kagan, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Richard Perle joined the Bush II team. Finding no need to pussyfoot around, they insisted that the US should intervene wherever regimes rejected Washington’s road map.

Venezuela is just the latest country the US considers a threat. Since it sits on the world’s largest oil reserves (five times that of the US), former president Hugo Chávez and, after him, Nicolás Maduro chose an independent course. Despite US sanctions, Venezuela has sent its oil to countries such as China (which gets the lion’s share) as well as India, Cuba, Turkey, and even small amounts to Italy and Spain. Such goings-on cannot continue.

Though the geography has changed, none of this is new. During the Cold War, the CIA cast cloaks and daggers to remove regimes, bankroll opposition figures, and train forces, as it did with the Nicaraguan contras in the early 1980s.

The number of interventions is huge. In some countries, the CIA meddled in elections. Dov Levin, a political scientist at the University of Hong Kong, wrote that since the end of World War II, the United States interfered in 81 countries’ elections. He added that if the list were backdated to the end of the 19th century, it would be twice as long. Russia, he noted, came in second, interfering in 36 elections.

For example, before the 1948 elections in Italy, the CIA sought to discredit candidates who were Communists (the party was legal). Since they were the backbone of the resistance in World War II, many could have won. Thus, the CIA circulated millions of embarrassing forged letters and aired broadcasts warning of the catastrophe to come if the Communists won. The tactics mainly succeeded.

But election meddling was the least deadly of the CIA’s cloaks and daggers. For the next seven decades, it helped topple or kill both elected and non-elected leaders in Panama (in 1941 and 1989), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), the Congo (1960), Brazil (1964), Indonesia (1965–67), the Dominican Republic (1965), Bolivia (1971), Chile (1973), Argentina (1976), Grenada (1983), Haiti (1991), Libya (2011), and Ukraine (2014).

For example, in Indonesia, the CIA helped oust President Sukarno and install General Suharto. It financed opposition groups and anti-communist propaganda, trained military factions, and ran psychological operations to create instability—and revealed the names of insurgents. It also produced a pornographic film in which the lead wore a mask of Sukarno. After the coup, the Suharto regime killed between 750,000 and 1,000,000 individuals.

In Brazil, the CIA supported the generals’ coup, since it and the US thought President João Goulart was a leftist threat that had to be squashed. This led to a 24-year military dictatorship that killed or “disappeared” at least 1,000 political dissidents and activists. It also promoted the broader US strategy of intervening in the region.

In Chile, Richard Nixon, the CIA, and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger supported the 1973 Pinochet coup that toppled Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president, who committed suicide during the attack. Kissinger warned President Nixon that “the example of a successful Marxist government in Chile would surely have an impact on other parts of the world and significantly balance our own position in it.”

Similarly, in Argentina, the US supported the 1976 military coup to counter “leftist” threats. Here, the CIA provided intelligence and logistical support to the military junta to destroy its opposition. And the tactics succeeded. Afterward, at least 30,000 people were “disappeared” as the generals systematically abducted, tortured, and murdered them—even tossing some out of airplanes. The US looked the other way because it wanted the junta to stabilize the region and protect American interests.

On very few occasions, the schemes failed. For example, the CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro for decades. Through Operation Mongoose, the agency sent him explosive cigars or poisoned food, ballpoint pens, and scuba diving suits. But Castro survived until his death in 2016 at the age of 90.

Decades earlier, the United States, Britain, France, and Japan sent troops to Russia in the 1918 civil war to block a Bolshevik victory. They failed, and the Soviets retained power until 1989.

Interestingly, when Smedley Butler, a US Marine Corps general, retired in 1935, he famously announced, “I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business and the bankers. I was a gangster for capitalism.”

In April 2025, Dr. David Kirk, an assistant chair of intelligence studies at the American Military University, frankly said the US will “engage in denial and deceptions” to hide its plans from its enemies. However, over the past few decades, secrecy strategies have been scrapped.

But fine-tuned secrecy habits die hard. When I asked the Pentagon’s spokesman, Lt. Col. Bryon McGarry, about the weapons the US has sent to Israel and Ukraine since 2023, he said, “We don’t comment on specifics.”

As Kurt Vonnegut often wrote, “and so it goes.”

Trump and His Cronies Want a War in the Western Hemisphere

Don’t be fooled by the anti-interventionist language. The Trump administration is only too eager to use military force.

William D. Hartung