How was the USA able to take down the president of Venezuela and his wife so easily? : asklemmygrad

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 48 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

It'd make more sense to compare this to the US overthrowing Hussein. There was no attempt at preserving plausible deniability or relying on deniable assets like they did with Cuba, they just went in and secured the objective.

Though it still took them a few weeks to get Hussein. I don't know if that speaks to how much more powerful US surveillance and intelligence has become in the last 20 years or more to how unprepared Venezuela was for invasion, though.

Really frightening. I hope Cuba is preparing itself for invasion, because they'll certainly do it again.

[–] i_c_b_m@lemmygrad.ml 35 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Saddam was in pretty well hidden; from what I understand Maduro was captured from his presidential home. Seems like maybe Maduro should have taken more precautions. The CIA has been openly fucking around there for months.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm also guessing he got sold out in the end. Making bribes and deals was probably what the US was doing this whole time and why they didn't move in sooner.

[–] Maeve1@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 3 weeks ago

I think we're agreeing, if I'd read one more comment it would have been this one!

[–] Maeve1@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago

I don't understand how he wasn't in his saferoom unless someone/a with him was a comprador.

[–] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 33 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It'd make more sense to compare this to the US overthrowing Hussein.
Though it still took them a few weeks to get Hussein.

It took them 9 months to get Hussein (Iraq was invaded in March of 2003, Hussein captured in December 2003) and under very different circumstances. When he was captured, that was long after much of the country had been brought to ruin by the US's war and subsequent occupation, but with the full backing and active participation of a multinational "coalition." Maduro's capture happened after no real direct (let alone large scale) invasion of Venezuela, aside from the bombings of ships and murder of fishermen, of course. This was much more "out of the blue." With Saddam, they pulled him from a small hole that had been dug underground saddam-hussein where he was totally disheveled as he had been in complete hiding for months, having effectively not been the leader of Iraq for months either. Maduro was absolutely still the undeniable leader of the country, just straight up kidnapped and whisked away. These circumstances are not even remotely comparable imo.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

This really wasn't out of the blue though. The US has been attacking Venezuelan boats for months and has been trying to do regime change since 2002, it's hard to stomach the idea that this was surprising somehow. Maduro's capture was very telegraphed.

So, what would you even compare this too? Sending US troops in to directly kidnap a president is actually pretty novel, isn't it?

[–] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This really wasn’t out of the blue though. The US has been attacking Venezuelan boats for months and has been trying to do regime change since 2002, it’s hard to stomach the idea that this was surprising somehow. Maduro’s capture was very telegraphed.

Compared to Saddam, I'd say yes it was. The world knew there was a manhunt for Saddam, the search for him being probably second only to Osama Bin Laden. Most importantly, he had not been the presiding leader of that country for months. He was an underground fugitive, several of his sons having already been murdered long before his capture. Maduro was unambiguously the leader of Venezuala only yesterday, with the rest of the world (aside from those planning the operation) assuming that would continue to be the case for the forseeable future. While the fact that the US has wanted to get him out of there for years and has been ramping up aggression, yes it was still mostly out of the blue to kidnap an acting head of state as compared to a months long manhunt for a fugitive.

So, what would you even compare this too? Sending US troops in to simply kidnap a single guy is actually pretty novel, isn’t it?

I would say it is pretty novel, yes, at least for a head of state. The ousting and murder of Gaddafi is a little bit closer, but even then it was after a major military campaign by all of NATO. There might be comparisons made to the murder of Soleimani as well. I'd say both make better comparisons than to Hussein, but still fall short of this kidnapping which is unprecedented in many important, consequential ways.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I should point out that there has been a $50 million bounty for the arrest of Maduro since August, which itself was doubled from the $25 million bounty Trump put on him in January, which spells a clear picture that the US wanted him kidnapped for "trial".

But, yeah, it's probably too novel to compare to anything directly.

[–] PumpkinMug@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The $25 million bounty was announced by the Biden administration. Between Operation Gideon (Bay of Piglets) and Obama's "extraordinary threat" executive order in 2015, they've spent many years showing their intention to take someone from Venezuela to trial. I never thought they'd actually abduct Maduro though. Assassination? Absolutely. But kidnapping a world leader?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/10/world/americas/biden-bounty-nicolas-maduro.html

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh wow, he snuck that one in right as he was leaving office, probably knowing people (like me) would see that the first bounty was issued the second week of January and just assume Trump was already president.

But, yeah, they've been angling for regime change in Venezuela since 2002. I thought they'd just assassinate him, though.

[–] PumpkinMug@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yea I can't tell if abducting Maduro is somehow worse than what they did to Soleimani. One things for sure they better not let Maduro talk in court cuz unc is a yapper. His livestreams were great.

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 3 weeks ago

directly kidnap a president is actually pretty novel, isn’t it?

no not really. They did the same thing to Noriega in Panama right down to charging him with drug offenses. They also kidnapped Aristide from Haiti in 2004.

[–] Marat@lemmygrad.ml 42 points 3 weeks ago

For the comparison to Fidel, this wasn't very subtle. If you read about the attempts on Fidel, a lot of them [not all] are filled with the usual CIA wackiness. I.e, explode him with a cigar or poison icecream or whatever. Even Bay of Pigs had plausible deniability and Kennedy scaled back air support. Given soviet backing, the US had to rube-goldburg machine their way into killing Castro. Castro was a long con you hear about in books, which are convuluted and confusing and barely legal. Maduro was a mugger cutting your purse, basically.

Also this was basically entirely focussed on Maduro, based on current information. The forces used to defend against an general occupation seem to be up and running [for now] and did scratch the task force [according to trump].

Lastly, Maduro has been playing up a lot of "man of the people" stuff, and probably rejected hiding in some cave in the middle of nowhere, or might have assumed the US would invade first and then attempt to capture him, like Saddam (that's just speculation on my part though).

Overall, we'll see. It's been barely half a day so whatever happens next will help us formulate a conclusion

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 31 points 3 weeks ago

Air defenses were destroyed before the abduction and Maduro wasn't in a protected location.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 29 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Its quite obvious that they just didn't have the technical capacity to avoid it, and i don't think they have ever had. The US has been able to topple Venezuela for years they just weren't in a rush to do it nor they wanted to destroy their reputation yet, the US is now in a serious state of emergency economically and politically and thus accelerated these brutal takeovers without consideration for international reputation.

Same goes for Cuba, but the lack of economic resources there makes it a very low priority. Most of attempts against Fidel were made by ex-cuban extremists too

[–] i_c_b_m@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 3 weeks ago

Sugar isn't the strategic resource it was for the US in 1898.

I sincerely hope for the sake of our Cuban comrades, that Cuba has nothing the Fourth Reich is desperate enough to steal right now.

[–] MasterDeeLuke@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 3 weeks ago

While it indeed happened easier then I would of expected, the reasons are not that difficult to surmise. One country is reliant on leftover scraps from the 1980s for it's military hardware, the other has multi-billion dollar datacenters they can use to strategically dissect the country and figure out precisely what is the exact best things to do at the exact best time. The US historically never struggled with toppling state actors, it's difficulties where with quelling decentralized resistances. What happens now is the big question.

[–] Stizzah@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Corruption. They bought enough people in key positions. Do we know how many officers of the presidential guard were killed or wounded by the team that kidnapped Maduro? Yesterday I only heard reports of the bombing in the news, but not a word about the fight inside the presidential residence (except of course Trump's bullshits). Perhaps soon we'll find out that it wasn't a fight, at all.

EDIT: btw Trump also said that they knew about the safe room and the team brought equipment to open it. It's hard to believe that CIA agents infiltrated the residence ala Splinter Cell to find out this details. I'm afraid that Maduro was simply betrayed by his people.

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

How did isisrael disable Iran's air defenses and kill dozens of nuclear scientists?

Spies, Collaborators, Bribes, and a sneak attack.

They smuggled in and/or bought enough men to assault Maduro's residence and kidnap him. They launched enough missiles and set up enough jammers to knock out the air defense installations so the helicopters could come in and pick him up.

[–] Spongebobsquarejuche@hexbear.net 13 points 3 weeks ago

Literally the ‘why we don’t have health care’ joke.

[–] MasterDeeLuke@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, sadly in the majority of low GDP countries, if you give people money to do something, they are going to do it much more often then not, whatever that might be. And the US/Israel have plenty of fiscal money to give. Ideology isn't what matters for the vast majority of people in the global south, their own personal livelihood is by an overwhelming degree. It's not an insult, it's just a material reality. Even China had to fight a very hard battle against corruption during it's era of poverty and still is to a lesser extent.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm assuming this is asked in good faith out of curiosity, but I don't like how it is phrased. It implies that it was easy to do for the US, which is not, as far as I'm aware, proven. It could have taken them months or years of probing, infiltration, and regional military preparation to get to the point where they could do this. I also don't like how some people are replying as if it definitely was easy and they have the answer for why. The US power base is not god (in spite of it liking to act like it is) and given how much and often it has couped countries over decades, if it was easy for them to coup Venezuela, they would have done so long ago. This terrorist's act of kidnapping the president looks more like desperation to me than a show of strength. Don't give them credit for strength they are not proven to have.

[–] KrasnaiaZvezda@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 3 weeks ago

That's what I have been thinking as well. It seems a many people, even here, are taking a lot of what the imperialists says at face value, even without any actual evidence.

[–] big_spoon@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 3 weeks ago

i mostly assume that the surprise ~~motherfucker!~~ factor was key in the invasion,

Ask Lemmygrad