First, call Chávez what he is: a supporter of drug trafficking and terrorism.

Ooooh. Wow what a stick. Unfortunately, I don't believe the state department 'calling Chavez what he is' would have much affect since the rest of the world sees the CIA as having been complicit in drug trafficking and the US a supporter of state sponsored terrorism when it suits their interest. That's the problem with the US no longer having moral authority. Bush really screwed the pooch emasculating the US of the kind of power and influence it once held where declarations like this might have made a difference.

Second, designate Venezuela as an official state sponsor of terrorism. The National Security Council has made this recommendation since 2003. Some U.S. officials, well-meaning but misguided, feel that diplomacy alone will convince Chávez to change his ways. It has not and will not.

How can you be so certain diplomacy is a dead end when it's never really been tried? How neoconish. Reich reminds me of the belligerent and uncompromising hard right perspective of the last eight years unwilling to engage in diplomacy for fear that it might work and end Neocon fantasies of confrontation. The reasonable masses reject such war mongering.

Third, end the self-defeating U.S. dependence on the Venezuelan oil that finances Chavez's anti-democratic and anti-American aggression. The United States can find new sources for 8 percent of its imports much more quickly than Venezuela can find an alternate market for 72 percent of its exports.Some may say this last response is "disproportionate" or "confrontational." They should try saying that to the mother of the American child who died of a drug overdose, the wife of the U.S. policeman murdered by traffickers, or the orphan of the Colombian soldier killed by weapons provided by Hugo Chávez.

Please spare us by putting a stop to the barrage of insults upon our intelligence. You can start by getting rid of such blatantly ribald attempts to appeal to emotional arguments of the mothers of OD victims, drug war police, and orphans as if Chavez is the singular, ubiquitous antagonist and architect for the deaths of innocent people. Thinking individuals see right to the weakness of your argument. No longer purchasing oil from Venezuala has nothing to do with the prevention of the deaths of innocents that you mention, and it's absurd to think that hurting the US economy by stopping the flow of oil from Venezuala would somehow save people's lives that die in the drug war. The demand for oil would remain, and Chavez might take a short term hit, but the short and long term hit to the US economy could be just the thing to throw us back in recession. You would like that wouldn't you?

The drug industry is many times larger than whatever Chavez brings to it through ill gotten gains trafficking through FARC, and it's inane to treat him like you would a drug cartel leader. Chavez's primary spigot has and will remain oil, and until worldwide demand for oil can be mitigated, any disruption of the flow of oil to US markets will hurt the US far more than oil producing countries who will happily ship off oil to China as they happily fill our shoes. Sorry but your confrontational policies, at this point in time, is alarmist and serves to do more harm than good. There are enough foreign policy issues on deck for the US than to go chasing confrontation in Latin America while pretending like Hugo Chavez is the culprit behind the war on drugs.

It's a pretty outrageous article, and that's a much better response than I had in mind.

It's a pretty outrageous article, and that's a much better response than I had in mind.

chavez??????
Politics and reason always seem to conflict.

So Hugo Chavez is single-handedly responsible for the presence of narcotics on US soil?

Wow, it seems like just yesterday he was single-handedly responsible for financing Iran's nuclear program.

And time sure has flown by since back when he was single-handedly responsible for high global oil prices.

Good golly, Otto, if I didn't know better I'd think you guys just sit around making stuff up!

Who's writing these comments? Chavez's communication team? The facts are the facts, real and abundently apparent: Chavez deals drugs, Chavez supports armed insurrection in surrounding countries, Chavez survives off of being beligerent to the US -- whether Bush or Obama is in the White House -- and, to the point, he continues to serve as a threat to US interests in the hemisphere. Who cares if Reich wrote it or not -- Mickey Mouse could have written it but the facts are the facts. Stop apologizing for Chavez's dangerously aggresive behavior.

My economist friends tell me that the oil market is so internationalized (can't remember econ jargon) that refusing to trade with Venezuela would have little to no effect on either market. Therefore this policy recomendation seems to be based on blind emotional lashing out rather than coherrent geopolitical strategy.

It seems to me this is a common trend of the policy reccomendations of this article. One needs to ask one's self what are the US's national interests. I fear that provoking Chavez in the ways suggested would strengthen his position as leader of the 'anti-imperialist' alliance, and could lead to other Latin American countries to vote in 'anti-imperialists' democratically. Instead it seems prudent to let the 'socialist' hot air disperse by stregthening democracy and good governence in US allies in the region. Let's focus and make sure that the democratic gains in Columbia are not squandered by paying too much attention to chavez. Let's focus of Costa Rica, a shining example of democracy to lead to economic prosperity. Free trade deals (preferably that don't overwhelmingly support US pet industries like sugar cane) would be a good place to start.

In Latin America risk to democracy generally comes from within the state through civil war, not from without. As abhorant as some of Zelaya's actions were it is imperative that he be reinstated so that democracy can kick him out rather than a quesitonable coup. Let us lead by example and by supporting our allies, rather than spending time and energy trying to get rid of people who like Chavez can't really affect US interests much anyway.

I Think
porno izle

The article was no less histrionic than Chavez himself. Considering the US's mixed history in Latin America, there's a damn good reason why Fidel Castro's Cuba remains just as if not more popular than the US in many places. On top of this, it's impossible to even recognize the modest reforms that they have made; Bolivia's government is the first in its history to recognize the languages, cultures, and political needs of its indigenous majority. We may find a country's policies on media freedom obscene, and find their lack of term limits disturbing (something US ally Uribe wants for himself), but many of these populist leaders are popular for a reason, which is that they do a lot of good in other areas.

Anyways, he's the ex-ambassador to Venezuela; something tells me that he's part of why our nation has such a poor reputation in much of Latin America, and why anti-Americanism is such an effective populist tool in so many Latin American countries.

Perhaps I'm just an idealist, but if we can positively engage dictatorial societies like China, Saudi Arabia, and the USSR, it's simply nonsense that we cannot have constructive relations with democratically-elected Leftwing presidents. China, happy to arm the Khmer Rouge (along with the US), was seen as a potential ally, yet an individual who won two democratic elections, without rigging, against a private media largely opposed to his agenda, cannot be engaged because he gave guns to FARC. I see. I think this has to do more with nationalist pride on our part to see openly anti-American leaders on the continent.

Has the author forgotten what happened with Evo Morales when we talked tough?

Reich seems to advise we do the exact same thing that then U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia Manuel Rocha did when he warned in 2002, "As a representative of the United States, I want to remind the Bolivian electorate that if you elect those who want Bolivia to become a major cocaine exporter again, this will endanger the future of U.S. assistance to Bolivia."

The result: further popularity and support for Morales due to him standing up to the threatening, meddling imperialist bully.

No question, Chavez is involved in some activity that should be condemned.

But recommendations like the author's will only increase domestic support for these left-wing populist leaders. Going around and labeling leaders "evil" and "drug dealers" does very little to make us seem rational and intelligent as a nation. Is putting Venezuela on the "bad guy" list going to somehow motivate Venezuelans to oust Chavez? Do you think oil is that difficult of a commodity to find buyers for? As others said above, this will hurt America.

Venezuela can not be treated like North Korea or Iran. Unlike those two nations, they have the influence to build coalitions throughout the area, as the author clearly stated. Let us keep in mind these nations are democracies (while it lasts) and we would do better to influence the voters positively than to isolate, belittle, or threaten them.

Our policy towards Iran has only empowered its hard-line leaders. Why replicate this in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and elsewhere?

When their populist rallying cry is resistance against the imperialist American aggressor, why are we trying to prove them right by displaying overt aggression?

Have we also learned nothing from our occupation of Iraq?

He he....I noticed this article was under "Argument". I don't think there were too many arguments in this article, but there was plenty of hyperbole. I noticed that Otto has served 3 US presidents. Me thinks that people like Otto are part of the reason that the US is descending whilst China is ascending. But a fun article to read nonetheless...always like a bit of froth and bubbles.