So here we are again, watching another press conference in the age of global amnesia, the Defense Secretary standing tall behind a polished podium, announcing in his most solemn voice that “U.S. forces have conducted a precision strike off the coast of Venezuela, neutralizing a hostile vessel and eliminating four combatants.”
A neat, rehearsed sentence. A sentence engineered not to provoke questions but to smother them. What vessel? Whose combatants? What hostility?
Those are the questions nobody in the room dares to ask. Because when the United States says it has “credible intelligence” whether it’s the CIA, NSA, or some mysterious “interagency coordination” the world is expected to nod in obedient silence. After all, America never lies. Right?
But let’s pause for a moment. In the last decade, how many “precision strikes” turned out to be anything but precise? How many “enemy combatants” turned out to be fishermen, refugees, or smugglers whose greatest crime was being at the wrong coordinates at the wrong time?
When bombs fall on cities, the victims have names, families, and histories. But when a boat disappears under the waves, all that’s left is salt water and deniability.
The U.S. Defense Secretary framed the attack as “necessary,” “preemptive,” and “based on reliable intelligence.” Three words that have become the holy trinity of modern warfare. But the truth is, they are hollow mantras, linguistic camouflage for geopolitical opportunism.
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the CIA had information that a vessel off the Venezuelan coast was carrying weapons or planning an attack. Even if true, what gives any foreign power the right to strike in another nation’s territorial waters without a declaration of war, without UN approval, without accountability?
Ah, but this is not war, they tell us. This is “a limited defensive operation.” How convenient! You can bomb, kill, and destroy but as long as you call it “limited,” international law apparently takes a holiday.
There’s a pattern here. The U.S. never strikes for dominance, at least, that’s what its officials say. They strike for “freedom.” For “security.” For “stability.” Words that sound noble in Washington but mean terror elsewhere.
Venezuela, of course, is no innocent lamb in this geopolitical theatre. It’s a troubled state, suffocating under sanctions, corruption, and a government clinging to survival. But that does not justify the transformation of its coastline into a testing range for American firepower.
And let’s be clear: practicing targets in foreign waters, for that’s what this begins to look like, is not just provocative. It is criminal. International law does not allow “practice strikes” that result in death. The sea is not a shooting gallery for restless empires.
There is something disturbingly casual in how these announcements are made. The Defense Secretary’s tone was calm, almost bureaucratic. “We neutralized a threat.” As if neutralizing human beings is an administrative task, like filing taxes.
The faces of the dead do not appear on television. Their names are not read aloud. Their stories are buried deeper than the wreckage of their boat. Because to humanize them would make the whole act unbearable. It would force us to see that “defense” and “murder” can sometimes share the same coordinates.
Somewhere, an analyst at Langley probably typed a report. “Target confirmed. Proceed with engagement.” And someone else, in an air-conditioned room thousands of miles away, pressed a button. The missile flew. The sea boiled. The boat vanished. And then, in the echo of silence, came the press release.
We’ve been here before, from Baghdad to Belgrade, from Kabul to Tripoli. Each time, the justification is wrapped in the same language of righteousness. Each time, the “collateral damage” is swept aside. Each time, the world shrugs.
But there is fatigue now, even among America’s allies. Fatigue from watching international law twisted like soft wax to accommodate one nation’s paranoia. Fatigue from hearing “intelligence suggests” without ever seeing the proof. Fatigue from the arrogance of power that acts first and explains later, if it ever explains at all.
And then comes the punishment, not divine, but political. It never arrives in a grand flash of retribution; it creeps. Slowly, invisibly, through erosion of trust. Through alliances that fray, through moral authority that dissolves.
Because when a nation repeatedly violates the principles it claims to defend, it becomes its own worst enemy. The punishment is not a missile from another shore; it is isolation, cynicism, disbelief. When even your friends stop believing your version of truth, you have lost something greater than a war, you have lost credibility.
Trump’s America, for let us not pretend his ghost doesn’t still linger in this doctrine of brute unilateralism, has perfected the art of acting first and thinking later. “America First” was not just a slogan; it was a philosophy of impunity. The current administration, even if it dresses itself in more polite language, has inherited that machinery intact.
They can call it “defensive engagement,” “strategic containment,” or “a warning shot.” It changes nothing. The sea off Venezuela has become a grave.
If the U.S. had solid intelligence, let it show it. If the strike was lawful, let the international community examine it. But that will not happen, because transparency has become the enemy of power. The more secret the justification, the safer the official.
And yet, somewhere beneath the bureaucratic fog, the truth floats, quiet, heavy, waiting to surface.
History has a way of remembering these “small” incidents. They pile up, one after another, forming a dossier of arrogance. Empires do not fall because they are defeated by enemies; they fall because they rot from within, from the corrosion of their own moral compass.
One day, when the next Defense Secretary takes the podium to announce another “successful operation,” the words will echo into emptiness. No one will believe them. That will be the real punishment, when the world stops listening, because it no longer expects truth.
Until then, four nameless bodies lie beneath the Caribbean waves, sacrificed to a policy that confuses might with right. The press conference is over. The Secretary has left the stage.
And the sea, as it always does keeps its secrets.
No comments:
Post a Comment