CSotD: The First 24
Skip to comments
I said yesterday that I assumed cartoonists would leap to their drawing boards over the US strike into Venezuela and they didn’t disappoint, though their newspapers and syndicates didn’t match their pace. Nearly everything I found came from social media.
But today’s headline, “The First 24,” relates to time. I have nearly 24 graphic responses in hand but will choose a representative group. I’m sure there will be space and cause to feature more in the days to come.
Anderson was the first I came across, and it’s a nice finished piece despite the speed with which he got it posted. In it, he captures what became a pair of common points, which is that the obvious goal of the action was oil, and that the move contrasts with Trump’s pride over being “the peace president,” as symbolized by that silly FIFA trophy.
Had he earned a more established prize for peace, it might not be so easily worked into cartoons. As it is, there were cartoons both mocking the FIFA trophy and citing Trump’s desire for the Nobel.
As for the oil, there seems little doubt that Venezuela’s oil reserves were a major motivation in the move. Huck reduces things to a mix of blood and oil staining Trump’s hands equal to the odd discoloration already widely noted there, while the Contrarian’s Tim Dickinson points out that Trump himself has confirmed his motivation.
It’s an important point in Trump’s explanation that he refers to “our oil” and calls Venezuela’s nationalization of its reserves theft rather than a breach of contract, as if we had already paid the nation for all the oil we ever planned to extract.
Hajjaj, cartooning from Jordan, is one of several international cartoonists who sees the theft as coming from the other side of the exchange.
Cuba seems the most directly aggrieved party aside from Venezuela itself, its precarious economy being sustained by Venezuelan oil, and Yanes goes beyond an accusation of theft to make Maduro a Christ-figure crucified on an oil rig, with an eagle playing the role of vulture.
The analysis is secondary to the fury, and he’s not the only observer in this hemisphere to object to the American incursion. The NYTimes reports on world reaction, as does Al Jazeera. Responses range from outright condemnation to diplomatic concern, with only a small number saluting the move.
Some have compared the US move in Venezuela to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but, as Al Jazeera’s Rory Challands wrote, “When Russia does it, European leaders call it aggression. When the US does it, it’s complicated.”
The interference is not without precedent, and few of those similar actions have been greeted as positive by the world community. There has been a call for a meeting of the UN Security Council, but given America’s veto in the body, it’s unlikely to produce anything significant. However, it seems clear that the America First isolationists may find out the cost of actual isolation.
In this country, the timing of the invasion is seen by some, including Telnaes, as a purposeful distraction. This was to have been the final date for releasing the Epstein files, and Jack Smith’s damning testimony before Congress had just been released Friday. Those may not have been the main reasons for making the move when it happened, but the invasion does seem to soften their impact.
Brodner notes the demonstrations that took place, but they seem to be quickly organized groups of the usual suspects: News reports from New York, Chicago and elsewhere say demonstrators numbered in the hundreds. It’s likely there will be more public reaction as people become more familiar with the situation and share their opinions.
And speaking of the usual suspects, it’s not surprising that Senator Schumer issued a denunciation, not of the move itself but of the way in which it happened.
The administration claims it didn’t consult congress because it feared leaks, but there was a period between the decision and the time weather allowed the actual move when there could at least have been consultation with specific committees. As it was, the invasion was in progress before anyone in congress was informed of it.
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation from the House takes effect tomorrow, but she managed to get one final blast in before leaving, and while she may be exhibiting the fury of a former loyalist, her points line up with those of other critics.
McKee, too, points out the inconsistency of Trump’s attitude towards heads of state who smuggle drugs, Trump having pardoned the leader of oil-free Honduras who was convicted of smuggling hundreds of tons of cocaine into the United States.
It’s a particularly sensitive point, given that in his public address on the action, Trump led with a discussion of the military and political aspects of the move, but then went off into a familiar, unsubstantiated rant about alleged gang members, drug dealers and Joe Biden, betraying a lack of serious political justification for abducting Maduro and his wife, though the indictment is written without the trace of a smile.
It is, McConnell contends, inappropriate for Trump to advocate military action, given his own history of submitted false documents to avoid service when his country called. However, the president says he is not currently afraid of boots on the ground.
Duginski contends that gaining access to Venezuelan oil is not worth the risk of blundering into yet another endless war.
Much will depend on the response in Venezuela itself. There were demonstrations here by Venezuelan ex-pats who were delighted to see Maduro fall and expressed a hope of return to their homeland, though that’s hardly surprising. If they liked the fellow, they wouldn’t have left.
Le Lievre sees it all as an act of American piracy, and, while the Venezuelan government has both a vice-president able to step in for the captured chief of state and an opposition government that observers charge was cheated in the last elections, Trump has announced that the US will take charge of the country for the transition.
The question now being how that transition will go. Stay tuned.
Comments 17