President Trump has stated that the United States government plans to "run" Venezuela but has not made any comment as to how this will be done. The president in the days after the military operation has threatened to take Greenland for "national security" reasons, and Senator Lindsay Graham, while standing next to Trump, stated that "Cuba's days are numbered." Trump has been fairly consistent in fulfilling the needs of the American establishment; this includes the technocrats at Silicon Valley, the oil conglomerates, Wall Street, the security state, and the Zionist lobby. It seems apparent that the American establishments have banded together under Trump to use him to further their goals and to consolidate power in the Western Hemisphere. But this still begs the question that the Trump Administration has failed, or just refuses, to answer: how will America run Venezuela? Marco Rubio was on Face the Nation and refused to answer the question and just insisted that this operation is totally different from the wars in the Middle East. He said:

"The whole, you know, foreign policy apparatus thinks everything is Libya, everything is Iraq, everything is Afghanistan. This is not the Middle East. And our mission here is very different. This is the Western Hemisphere."

Despite the government's refusal to give a sensible explanation of their actions and a reasonable plan for the future, past history can give hints to the possible future of Venezuela, the United States, and the Western Hemisphere.

The Technical State

When conducting an insurrection of a regime, the head of state and his legislative buildings do not matter. In the history of successful revolutions, as well as failed revolutions, the technical structure of the country is the key. The American military can capture the president, but when the power, energy, transport, internet, telephone, and other technical structures and industries remain in the hands of the state, then regime change is impossible. When the FBI accused the January 6th protestors of being"insurrectionists," it should be asked what they were trying to coup. 

The capitol building is just that, a building, with little more than symbolic value. If they had decided to capture and occupy the building, the outside regime would've just surrounded the building and turned off the power and water until their surrender. To conduct a coup, you must not capture the government; you must capture the state. In his 1931 book, "Coup d'Etat," Curzio Malaparte wrote extensively on how to conduct a real insurrection, having been involved in Mussolini's rise to power, witnessing the Russian revolutions, and being a part of the Italian delegation to Warsaw during the Soviet-Polish war of 1920. He quoted Leon Trotsky extensively, the true mind behind the revolution that overthrew Kerenski's provisional government. In "Coup d'Etat" (p.30) a conversation between Trotsky and the revolutionary Dzerjinsky was outlined, which explains the process that led to the regime change of Kerenski:

"On the eve of the Coup d'Etat, Trotsky told Dzerjinsky that Kerenski's government must be completely ignored by the Red Guards; that the chief thing was to capture the State and not to fight the government with machine-guns; that the Republican Council, the Ministries and the Duma played an unimportant part in the tactics of insurrection and should not be the objective of armed rebellion; that the key to the State lay, not in its political and secretarial organizations, nor yet in the Tauride, Maria, or Winter Palaces, but in its technical services, such as the electric stations, the telephone and telegraph offices, the port, gasworks and water mains."