and contradictory signals from the Obama administration about potential U.S. belligerence, I am always alert to possible trigger points for U.S. war in LatAm. The Falklands is one of them. Oil is an important, not-so hidden issue in that dispute. The U.K. would be looking to secure more oil reserves in Argentina's coastal waters. The U.S. (in collusion with the U.K.) would be looking for a "divide and conquer" distraction while they went after Venezuela's huge oil reserves in the Caribbean and northern Venezuela. The U.S. and the U.K. have been colluding to steal Middle East oil for over half a century, most recently, of course, in Iraq and Libya. This was the original conspiracy (U.S./U.K.) that prevented Iran from developing a post-WW II democracy.*
There is lots of precedent for the U.S. and the U.K. ganging up to steal and profit from other peoples' oil.
The most obvious potential trigger points during the Bush Junta era were the Colombia/Venezuela border and the Colombia/Ecuador border (where U.S./Colombia bombing of a FARC guerrilla hostage release camp almost did start a war, in March 2008). The Bush Junta's tool in Colombia--its mafioso president Alvaro Uribe--was obviously using the unstable Colombia/Venezuela border in schemes to topple the Chavez government. The most notable contradictory signal from the Obama administration was Panetta's yanking of Uribe and installing (or at least vetting/approving) Manuel Santos as president of Colombia--Panetta's first (semi-) visible act as CIA Director. Santos immediately made peace with Venezuela.
On the other hand, with the rightwing coup in Honduras in June 2009 (Bush Junta-designed, Obama/Clinton supported), the Pentagon has been expanding its military bases in Honduras and the Obama administration has shown no intent to pull back the Pentagon's footprint in the region, except for a recent 15% reduction in military aid to Colombia (15% of at least $7 BILLION.)
The Pentagon's footprint in the region includes many new bases in Colombia, the reconstitution of the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean, a secret Colombia/U.S. military agreement (circa 2009-2010) that would have further expanded the U.S. military presence in Colombia, if the agreement had not been exposed and eventually declared unconstitutional by the Colombian supreme court, U.S. military maneuvers in supposedly demilitarized Costa Rica, a secret Pentagon plan for use of its bases in LatAm for military control of the "global south" from Africa to Asia, on-going 'training' of LatAm military (from the few remaining rightwing regimes) at the notorious U.S. "School of the Americas," on-going use of the "war on drugs" ploy for U.S. surveillance and infiltration of LatAm militaries and security forces, "coordination of forces" agreements including installing systems at airports (both civilian and military) that the Pentagon can monitor and utilize, billions of dollars, all told, for subversive activities in LatAm (supporting rightwing/fascist groups, undermining leftist democracies) and more.
The Pentagon calls Latin America its "Southern Command." It most certainly views this region as a "field of operations" in various war scenarios, and undoubtedly has one or more war plans on its books to take over and control strategic countries and resources. Indeed, the Honduran coup--which the U.S. military base in Honduras aided--appears to be part of just such a plan, i.e., securing a strategically located country. (Honduras is the traditional stepping stool for U.S. aggression in Central America.)
A lot of resistance has developed toward U.S. military presence and activity in LatAm--serious resistance (such as Ecuador evicting the U.S. military base at Manta). Brazil's former president, Lula da Silva, said that the U.S. 4th Fleet posed "a threat to Brazil's oil." I am not inventing this fear. It is widespread in LatAm--the fear that the U.S. would wage war to regain U.S. corporate control of LatAm resources, especially its vast oil reserves.
The Clinton/Bush pattern is that the Democrats set up the resource wars (for instance, the Clinton sanctions against Iraq) and the Pukes do the invading. This is an extremely worrisome pattern as it may apply to LatAm. Though, as I said, there are contraindications, re Obama, that Obama/Clinton/Panetta may intend a more peaceful strategy (with, of course, the same goal as the Bushwhacks: U.S. corporate domination/profiteering), they have not dismantled the "Southern Command." Far from it.
This is not to mention the Bush Junta criminal activity in Colombia that the Obama administration has acted to cover up. This may include mass murder as well as using the "war on drugs" not to stop the drug trade but to control of it and profit from it. This may or may not be a sidelight to Pentagon war plans. It's possible that the trillion+ dollar cocaine trade is the controlling interest, even more important than Venezuela's vast oil reserves (and Brazil's and Ecuador's). If Diebold puts Jeb in the White House, and Jeb instigates a war in LatAm--on whatever ruse--we can be sure that the hidden text of that war will be the drug trade and its vast criminal network (closely tied to rightwing groups) throughout LatAm.
I don't think Obama is that dirty but I also don't think Obama has much power--that is, he could be dragged into a war by subversive forces within the Pentagon, the CIA, the Miami mafia and other traitors and dirtbags. There seemed to be just such a cabal at work in the Honduran coup--and the object seemed to be to surprise Obama with a situation of U.S. belligerence and interference that he couldn't get out of. The Honduran coup SERIOUSLY sabotaged his stated policy of "peace, respect and cooperation" in LatAm, only six months into his administration. (Panetta was not yet in place at the CIA.) Obama and Clinton reacted very badly, indeed (rigging up a phony election to legitimize the coup). The upshot is that the Pentagon and the fascists here and there won.
Could that happen again, with even more at stake (an oil war in this hemisphere)? It may be less likely now (that Obama could be cornered in this way) but, yes, I think it could happen. There is a possibility that Obama could acquiesce to a war in LatAm. His actions in Libya and other indicators make me unsure of him on this matter. Are he and Panetta actually aimed at peaceful dominion of the world rather than warlike dominion? Or are they prepping things for Jeb? Also, if the Pentagon/corporate quest for more oil is stymied as to Iran, will they shift their targets closer to home?
Our political establishment has shown NO resistance to the corporate goals of Exxon Mobil, BP and other transglobal oil monsters, and thought nothing of slaughtering a hundred thousand innocent people to further them. I don't see any evidence that that has changed. The oil corporations are the "top dogs" on the pile of monstrous greedbags who control our government. What they say, goes. If they decide for an oil war in this hemisphere, there is nothing to stop them except the Latin Americans themselves (who may well stop them, eventually, but at great cost).
There is also the possibility of something less than all out war--a series of skirmishes, "divide and conquer" tactics, underminings of LatAm governments, instigation of chaos and mayhem (i.e., Colombia, Mexico), distraction of Argentina and Brazil and other Venezuelan allies with a Falklands war, a rightwing insurrection in Zulia (northern Venezuelan oil province), Honduran rightwing death squads into Nicaragua (another Venezuelan ally), and so on--the goal of which would be to secure just a "circle the wagons" area--Central America/the Caribbean--with Venezuela's oil coast on the Caribbean and its northern oil provinces as the southern rim of this U.S.-controlled area.
Venezuela has the largest oil reserves on earth (twice Saudi Arabia's, according to the USGS). That may satisfy the hungry Oil Beast for a while. This seems a more viable war plan: They would try to keep Brazil out of it (or neutralize Brazil in some way), create confusion within and among Venezuela's other allies (f.i., with a U.K./Argentina Falklands war) and have some clever, "Gulf of Tonkin"-type ruses for military action up their sleeve, and, above all, they would limit the area to be conquered (avoiding a head-on collision with South America's very strong and unified leftist movement).
----
*(Iran's first president nationalized the oil, circa early 1950s, intending to use oil revenues to benefit the poor. The U.S., U.K. and Israel overthrew that president and installed the horrible, torture-loving "Shah of Iran" to serve western oil interests. The Iranian people--who would otherwise have been the top Middle Eastern candidate for a progressive, open and highly cultured society, consequently turned inward and became dependent on the "mullahs" to gain the organizational strength to overthrow the "Shah," which they eventually did.
(This is a prime example of how short-term, corporate profit-driven thinking can fuck up the world in the long run--and even end the world, when you add in the dangers of nuclear weapons. Iran is now looking at Iraq (right next door) and Libya as examples of what the U.S. will do to you if you DON'T have nuclear weapons. It is no wonder that they want that deterrent. I don't think they would ever use nuke weapons, as offense. They are not suicidal and they are also not very aggressive. Unlike Saddam Hussein and the U.S., they have not invaded anybody and seem content with their territorial boundaries. The Bush Junta oil men, just like their predecessors did in the early 1950s, sought short-term profit in Iraq and fucked up the world all over again, so that the whole region is now a tinder box. Corporate profit-driven policy is BAD policy and, very unfortunately, we are the pawns of that bad, dangerous, potentially earth destroying policy.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
