Regime Change: The Dangerous Game and Its Costly Consequences

This discussion dives into the serious implications of attempting regime change, drawing on historical examples and current events. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson shares his insights on the legality and morality of military actions, particularly concerning non-combatants, and the potential for war crimes. The conversation also touches upon the complexities of the drug war and the shifting global power dynamics.

Key Takeaways

• The legality of military actions resulting in civilian casualties is questionable, with historical precedents suggesting a disregard for established laws of armed conflict.
• Attempted regime change, even if seemingly successful, can lead to unforeseen and negative global consequences, including empowering adversaries.
• The global drug war strategy has been largely ineffective, corrupting regions and failing to address the root causes of drug distribution.
• Shifting global power dynamics, particularly the rise of China and Russia’s assertive actions, pose significant challenges to U.S. influence.
• Accountability for questionable military actions is difficult to achieve within current governmental and military structures.

The Questionable Legality of Military Actions

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson raises serious concerns about the legality of military actions that result in the deaths of non-combatants. He points out that the same legal interpretations that allowed for torture during the Bush administration have been used to justify actions like the killing of Americans abroad, including a child. The argument often hinges on labeling targets as "narco-terrorists" or threats to national security, a justification Wilkerson finds deeply problematic.

He highlights a disturbing pattern where the same office within the Justice Department that provided legal cover for torture also advised that murdering American citizens abroad was permissible. This raises questions about the integrity of legal justifications for military operations, especially when they lead to the deaths of individuals who may not be direct combatants.

Attacking Shipwrecked Sailors: A War Crime?

One particularly troubling incident discussed involves the attack on shipwrecked individuals. Congressman Jim Hines, after a briefing, expressed deep distress over what he witnessed, describing it as an attack on "shipwrecked sailors." According to the Department of Defense manual, attacking shipwrecked individuals is an impermissible action. Despite explanations about the context, such as the individuals carrying drugs, the act of attacking those in distress on a destroyed vessel is seen by many as a clear violation of the laws of armed conflict.

Wilkerson emphasizes that even if the individuals were considered "bad guys," shooting them when they are incapacitated and shipwrecked constitutes a war crime. He argues that accountability is necessary for those involved in the chain of command, but expresses skepticism about the military’s or government’s ability to hold individuals accountable without significant external pressure or a change in leadership.

The Ineffectiveness of the Drug War

The conversation shifts to the long-standing "war on drugs," a strategy Wilkerson has long criticized. He recalls a conversation with Colin Powell where he questioned the military’s involvement in a war that seemed unwinnable. The best outcome, he argued, was a marginal increase in drug prices, which did little to solve the problem and instead led to corruption and instability in regions like Mexico and the Caribbean.

Furthermore, Wilkerson points out the disconnect between the stated reasons for certain military actions and the actual flow of drugs. He notes that the DEA and the UN Office on Narcotics have found no direct link between Venezuela and drug distribution to the U.S. This raises questions about the true motivations behind military interventions and the effectiveness of current strategies.

The Shifting Global Landscape and the Consequences of Regime Change

Colonel Wilkerson discusses the broader geopolitical consequences of attempted regime change. He argues that such actions, whether successful or not, can inadvertently shift power towards adversaries like China and Russia. Russia, he suggests, is already retaliating by placing assets in regions that threaten U.S. interests, citing the deployment of advanced submarines and underwater vehicles capable of delivering nuclear payloads.

The situation in Venezuela is presented as a case study. The U.S. interest in its vast oil reserves is clear, but the methods used to gain access, including supporting opposition figures and applying pressure, are seen as destabilizing. Wilkerson believes that a direct invasion of Venezuela would be a disaster, comparable to Vietnam, and likely worse.

He also touches upon the financial cost of military posturing, estimating it to be around a billion dollars a day in some scenarios. The idea of a "bluff" in diplomatic negotiations is explored, with the possibility that concessions are being made behind the scenes to de-escalate tensions.

Accountability and the Future of U.S. Power

The discussion circles back to accountability. Wilkerson suggests that individuals responsible for war crimes should be prosecuted, even internationally. However, he acknowledges the difficulty of achieving this within the current system. He also reflects on the diminishing power of the United States on the global stage and the challenge of managing this transition.

He poses a critical question: how will the U.S. handle its declining influence? Will it retreat behind its borders and adopt an isolationist, aggressive stance, or will it find a way to cooperate with other rising global powers? This question of how the U.S. navigates its "offramp from empire" is presented as a major challenge for the future.

Finally, the conversation touches on the conflicting statements made by officials regarding specific military actions, particularly the incident involving the shipwrecked individuals. The differing accounts and the "fog of war" or "fog of fear" are highlighted as contributing to a lack of clarity and accountability. The episode concludes with a somber reflection on the difficulty of making a difference, despite the efforts to bring these issues to light.