Power, Profit, and the Cost of Intervention

 

Power, Profit, and the Cost of Intervention

Hindi Version: https://rakeshinsightfulgaze.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_3.html

When the United States moves toward military confrontation with a country like Venezuela, much of the world sees the imbalance immediately. It resembles an elephant boasting about a victory over a mouse. The display of power may be decisive, but it raises questions about motive, proportionality, and legitimacy.

Historically, the United States has relied on economic sanctions to pressure large or geopolitically influential nations. Yet when dealing with smaller or less powerful countries such as Grenada, Nicaragua, or Panama, the response has often escalated to direct military intervention. This inconsistency invites scrutiny. Why are some nations pressured economically while others are met with force?

There is no question that many leaders in these countries have governed poorly, often prioritizing personal gain over public welfare and denying citizens basic services. However, reducing these crises solely to local corruption ignores a broader and more uncomfortable reality. Many of the structural problems in these nations are deeply influenced by foreign economic interests, particularly American corporate and billionaire investors who view these countries primarily as opportunities for extraction and profit.

Natural resources, prime real estate, and strategic locations are frequently treated as commodities to be acquired, not assets belonging to sovereign nations and their people. The dynamic mirrors colonial-era practices, where local populations were marginalized while foreign elites accumulated wealth. While modern Britain has made visible progress in confronting its colonial legacy, including political leadership that reflects its diversity, elite economic behavior has often changed far less than public values.

At home, most Americans have little understanding of what Venezuela has done to warrant such intense attention, or why military force is framed as necessary. What they do understand, once costs are revealed, is that these interventions consume billions of taxpayer dollars. Defense contracts, private security, logistics, and reconstruction efforts are routinely billed at premium rates, with the primary beneficiaries being large corporations rather than the public.

Equally troubling is the erosion of democratic oversight. Military actions of this scale have proceeded without clear authorization from Congress, concentrating power within the executive branch. Over time, this pattern has contributed to trillions of dollars in national debt, much of it tied to defense spending that lacks transparency or meaningful public debate.

One justification sometimes offered is strategic necessity. As one U.S. military officer reportedly argued, South America contains a concentration of natural resources critical to next-generation technologies. From this perspective, intervention becomes a tool for securing future economic dominance. Yet framed this way, the forced removal of a foreign government appears less like a defense of democracy and more like a sophisticated form of resource theft. Under international law, such actions are illegal, regardless of how they are justified rhetorically.

This pattern extends beyond Latin America. In the case of Ukraine, the prolonged conflict suggests that neither side’s backers are fully committed to resolution. Russia appears intent on asserting regional dominance, particularly over Europe, rather than achieving outright victory. The United States, meanwhile, has sent mixed signals. Past demands that European nations shoulder more of NATO’s financial burden make a prolonged state of tension strategically convenient, if morally questionable.

What happened in Venezuela fits this broader pattern. A powerful nation flexes its military and economic strength to remind an entire region who holds authority. The outcome is fear, compliance, and instability, while ordinary taxpayers see no return on their investment.

This leads to a fundamental question: if American citizens are not the beneficiaries of these actions, who is?

The answer increasingly points to corporate interests that operate through democratic governments rather than being constrained by them. These entities influence which laws are passed, which governments are destabilized, and how natural resources and labor are extracted under legal frameworks that often violate both national constitutions and international law.

If democratic systems are to mean anything beyond formality, this relationship between corporate power, government authority, and military force must be confronted openly. Without accountability, intervention will continue to serve profit rather than people, and power will remain the primary justification for actions that undermine the very principles they claim to defend.