Why “Rebuilding Venezuela” Sounds Like a Script We’ve Heard Before
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
The Question That Always Comes Next
After the bombs, after the speeches, after the claims of legality, one question inevitably follows:
Who gets paid?
It is not a cynical question. It is a necessary one. Modern military interventions are never just about force. They are about contracts, access, and control—and those interests tend to surface early, often before any verified assessment of actual damage.
Venezuela is no exception.
“Rebuilding” Before the Damage Is Proven
Public statements from U.S. leadership have already moved past justification and into reconstruction rhetoric—talk of fixing energy infrastructure, stabilizing production, and bringing in outside expertise.
The problem is straightforward:
there is no independent evidence that Venezuela’s oil infrastructure required emergency rebuilding at the time these claims were made.
When “reconstruction” language appears before verified destruction, it stops sounding like recovery and starts sounding like pre-positioning.
Oil Has Always Been the Background Music
Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves. That fact alone has shaped a century of foreign interest, pressure, and intervention.
When U.S. officials speak openly about:
- restoring output,
- stabilizing supply,
- or involving American energy firms,
they are not describing humanitarian aid. They are describing market access.
That distinction matters.
Wars justified in moral language but executed through economic restructuring rarely end cleanly. They end with long-term entanglements, protected assets, and a permanent security footprint.
Contractors Don’t Arrive by Accident
Large-scale “rebuilding” does not happen organically. It happens through:
- pre-cleared contractors,
- established defense–energy relationships,
- and expedited procurement justified by “stabilization.”
This is not conjecture. It is how post-conflict economies are routinely reorganized.
When military force clears space and private contracts follow, the sequence is not accidental. It is institutional muscle memory, refined over decades.
Why Profit Motive Corrodes Legitimacy
The moment an intervention appears to benefit foreign corporate interests, legitimacy collapses—regardless of stated intent.
Local populations do not parse procurement rules or press briefings. They observe outcomes:
- Who controls resources
- Who profits
- Who is protected
- Who is excluded
Once resource control becomes visible, every security incident is reinterpreted as defense of extraction, not public order.
That perception is devastating—and often irreversible.
This Is How “Temporary” Becomes Permanent
Military interventions tied to economic restructuring almost never remain temporary.
Security becomes necessary to protect:
- infrastructure,
- personnel,
- supply chains,
- and contractual guarantees.
Each layer justifies the next.
What begins as “stabilization” becomes entrenchment, not because of ideology, but because money requires protection—and protection requires force.
The Historical Pattern Is Unambiguous
From Iran to Iraq to Afghanistan, the pattern repeats:
- Military action framed as necessity
- Economic access framed as recovery
- Contractors framed as neutral
- Security framed as unavoidable
- Exit framed as irresponsible
This is not hindsight bias. It is documented history.
Ignoring that pattern does not make Venezuela different. It makes the warning louder.
Editorial Condemnation
WPS News condemns the premature turn toward reconstruction and profit framing in the wake of an illegal military intervention.
You do not “rebuild” what you have not proven was destroyed.
You do not talk about contracts while refusing transparency.
And you do not claim moral authority while positioning to control another nation’s resources.
If this intervention were truly about law, security, or human welfare, the money would not be speaking first.
But it always does.
APA Citations
United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations.
Klare, M. T. (2004). Blood and oil: The dangers and consequences of America’s growing petroleum dependency. Metropolitan Books.
Stiglitz, J. E., & Bilmes, L. J. (2008). The three trillion dollar war: The true cost of the Iraq conflict. W. W. Norton & Company.
Discover more from WPS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WPS News 