#cia interventions

[fuckingmoskau]

Venezuela, January 3, 2026: The Day the Dams Broke

Venezuela, January 3, 2026: The Day the Dams Broke

[akmalino-blog]

A Brief History of American Imperialism

DISCLAIMER: there are literally vast amounts of information on this topic, so a good place to start may be William A. Williams' essay "Empire as a Way of Life" :-)

  An understanding of why American foreign policy, since the birth of the republic, has been consistently expansionist is one of a complex nature. We must start from, well, the birth of the republic itself: that American imperialism is rooted—by design—in the founding of the nation.

American exceptionalism must first be addressed; the idea that America is a nation founded under divine circumstances for a divine purpose. One of the earliest examples of this can be found in John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon, “A Model of Christian Charity”, where he declared that the colonist’s new home would be a “city upon a hill” and that “the eyes of all people are upon us.” This presumption of a divinely sanctioned land became especially embedded within the colonies after the Revolution, highlighted by Thomas Jefferson in his 1801 inaugural address that their government is the “world’s best hope.” The Founders were convinced that others would follow in the footsteps of the “perfect” revolution; but insecurity arose when few actually did. This led to, as Albert K. Weinberg states, a “hysterical apprehensiveness” bordering on a “progressive madness” about national security; which translated into expansion as security—take the conquest of the Floridas, the Louisiana Purchase, and Madison’s attempt to take Canada in the War of 1812 as early examples of continental imperialism.

But, preserving the “world’s best hope” isn’t the only justification for expansion; Madison, for example, had other ideas, which were rooted in political thought. The “minority of the opulent”—in other words, the wealthy few—is who Madison was most concerned about protecting. He states that, “In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place.” And that “They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” And how does a country accomplish this? By extending the sphere. Madison states, in Federalist #10, that if you “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.”

Perhaps the most compelling argument for expansion—this time not physical, but economic—is the need for a capitalist country to combat the problem of overproduction—the failure to sell surplus. In other words, if a total product isn’t sold, the rate of profit falls; it’s simple as that. Hence, it is imperative to have access to as many markets as possible. This results in Secretary of State John Hay’s 1899 Open Door Notes; initially an attempt at opening Chinese markets, it sets in place the “open door” policy for American advocacy of global free trade—essential to economic expansion. As William A. Williams states, “It equated such marketplace principles with freedom, liberty, and progress in all other areas of life.  And it committed the United States to deploy its power in behalf of those principles.” The United States was also not afraid to use force to uphold this policy; take Teddy Roosevelt’s 1904 State of the Union address for example: “Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.” The open door policy of universal free trade, to expand American market dominance, and the willingness to uphold this via force, are paramount to understanding American imperialism—a non-traditional, economic empire.

In the aftermath of World War II, the United States became increasingly interventionist in the affairs of other nations—both economically and physically. With resources such as a booming post-war economy; a robust military; and the ability to rebuild Europe under its own conditionality, the U.S. undertook the hegemonic project: the quest to dominate the world market. The first step was to eradicate those damn Soviets; whose centrally-planned economy was not open to trade, or, which would later emerge as an area of great concern, foreign investment—and whose economic model could serve as an example for other developing nations to follow, proliferating borders closed to trade and investment. And the countries that did follow in the footsteps of the Soviets? Even if it was only to the slightest extent—such as nationalizing a certain industry perhaps, we intervened; typically with the use of the CIA, to overthrow so called “communist” governments—“proxies” of Moscow—and install leaders loyal to economic interdependence and American ideals, while showing the world there was no alternative to capitalism.

To further understand the significance of the Cold War, one must first understand the military-industrial complex. To save the domestic economy, Franklin D. Roosevelt contracted some of the nation’s largest corporations—General Electric, for example—to manufacture war materials. This special contract between the state and business acted as “military Keynesianism”, stimulating the economy through defense contracts. American policymakers saw this as an opportunity to wipe out the Soviet Union through increased military spending. National Security Council Document 68, from April 1950, highlighted this procedure by calling for military superiority, not diplomatic action, to destroy the Soviet Union. According to Gary B. Nash, et al., “NSC-68 required that the United States must increase defense spending to as much as $50 billion per year from the original $13 billion set for 1950.”

Ironically, this vast increase in military spending and R&D through defense contracting ultimately undermines the domestic manufacturing economy resulting in a lack of competitiveness abroad; highlighted by the partial collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, when the U.S. abandons its fixed gold standard due in part to a rising trade deficit abroad and inflationary deficit spending at home, proving that you cannot have both guns and butter. As a result, the U.S. lifts all capital flight controls in 1974, shifting to a financialized economy fueled by speculative investment and economic rent-seeking—the act of not creating, but simply acquiring a larger share of the “pie”—abroad. This shift furthers the necessity of intervention to open up foreign borders not only to trade, but most importantly to investment as well.

The methods of these so-called interventions are of great concern, as they place emphasis on the United States’ accordance with basic presumptions of universal human rights and highlight the nature of American imperialism/hegemony. The 1954 intervention in Guatemala can be used as a case study, as it exemplifies features that are consistent throughout most CIA interventions.

Let’s first start with the justifications for such activity; not what the real reason behind the intervention is, but what is asserted by officials—in a highly dishonest foreign policymaking process, which may not always include the media or the public. If one word could sum up justification for post-WWII interventions, it would be, of course, “communism”—or today, terrorism. In the case of Guatemala, President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Allen Dulles had decided that the “legally-elected government of Jacobo Arbenz was ‘communist’, therefore must go” and that “the Guatemalans were living under a ‘Communist type of terrorism’” (Blum, 73). In reality, president Arbenz—who “had no special contact or spiritual/ideological ties with the Soviet Union” (Blum, 73)—was elected on a populist platform; and once in office, enacted a program of land reform that expropriated land to “approximately 100,000 peasants”, in a country where “2.2% of landowners owned 70% of arable land” (Blum, 74). But the lynchpin for intervention was Arbenz’s competition with the largest corporation in the country, United Fruit Company; who “had close ties with the Dulles brothers, various State Dept. officials, congressmen, and the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.” (Blum, 75). To compete with UFC’s holdings—which included a monopoly on all banana exports, the only Atlantic port, and telephone and telegraph lines—Arbenz built a new port, highway, and hydro-electric dam, to limit the power of foreign companies. He stated in his inaugural address that “Foreign capital will always be welcome as long as it…cooperates with economic development of the country, and strictly abstains from intervening in the nation’s social and political life”—far from a communist’s worldview. But, quite frankly, these policies were deemed unacceptable by the United States, which favored the free flow of capital in and out of countries, and who didn’t want one nation to become an example of economic independence for others to follow.

To stage the intervention, the CIA first set up headquarters in Nicaragua, on a lease from Nicaraguan dictator, Somoza. They then proceeded to drop leaflets, a technique used time and time again by the CIA, over Guatemala, claiming Arbenz was going to disarm the military and form a people’s militia—along with the use of a “clandestine” CIA radio station to broadcast the same message (Blum, 76). The propaganda campaign was extensive; other methods used include: planting anti-Guatemala articles in newspapers and hoping they would proliferate, while appearing as an independent opinion; distributing “more than 100,000 copies of a pamphlet entitled “Chronology of Communism in Guatemala” (Blum, 77) throughout Latin America; producing three films on Guatemala, “with predictable content” and “newsreels favorable to the United States for showing free in cinemas” (Blum, 77); visiting anti-communist Cardinal, Francis Spellman, to formulate a pastoral letter that was read in Guatemalan churches bringing to attention “to the presence in the country of a devil called communism” (Blum, 77); and even sponsoring a “Congress Against Soviet Intervention in Latin America” in Mexico City (Blum, 77).

Utilizing radio stations of their own, while jamming the only government radio station, the CIA led an attack of psychological warfare directed at the peasants and Arbenz himself; “the CIA was able to answer real military messages with fake responses” (Blum, 78), by staging frightening broadcasts while dropping fragmentation bombs over the National Palace—even playing tape recordings of bomb attacks “over loudspeakers set up on the roof of the US Embassy” (Blum, 78). With the “belief of invincibility of the enemy”, Guatemalan military officers forced Arbenz to resign (Blum, 78). The CIA then put in power Col. Castillo Armas—a classic example of a “Third Force” leader; one who appears to be nationalistic, but in reality is a puppet chosen by the U.S., who will govern in accordance with economic interdependence. Not surprisingly, Armas’ regime returned all land expropriated back to United Fruit Company; banned banana workers’ unions; and arrested, tortured, and killed thousands on “suspicion of communist activity” (Blum, 81).

Consequences of this imperialistic, interventionist activity—in other words, America’s hegemonic project—are felt both abroad and at home. Subordination of human rights may be the most egregious aftereffect of American foreign policy; this not only includes basic human rights violations—that would produce outrage if practiced domestically—such as promoting torture or detention without due process, but also depriving a people of basic functions of government, such as perhaps a public healthcare or education system. Not to mention the blunt murder of civilians in order to sustain an economic empire. Also, after intervention, a country’s domestic economy may be so battered by the displacement of certain features of economic independence—such as tariffs, capital controls, and public expenditures—that it is in a much worse place than before, unlikely to recover due to the policies of a Third Force leader or that of institutions such as the IMF or World Bank.

Domestically, we have witnessed the decline of the civilian manufacturing economy—one that produces tangible goods; in favor of a military-rentier economy, that is fueled by speculative finance overseas and defense contracts. Again, this ironically has led to weakened competiveness in an ever more competitive global marketplace—with competition among strong manufacturing economies such as those in China and Germany—and a decentering of classic American hegemony. It has also proved the inability to have both guns and butter; an increase in military expenditures is always favored over an increase in social expenditures—comprehensive social programs like those in Western Europe are deemed incapable of affording. As stated by the Guatemalan foreign minister, Mr. Toriello, the United States categorizes “as ‘communism’ every manifestation of nationalism or economic independence, any desire for social progress, any intellectual curiosity, and any interest in progressive liberal reforms.”

Lastly, and perhaps of paramount importance, is the ability of the economic model in question to address pressing issues of global concern such as climate change and sustainability of the Earth’s finite resources. As long as the profits of a few are placed as a higher concern than our deteriorating planet, and their tremendous clout suppresses the voice of real people, then these issues will not be solved, and we will be doomed for destruction.