Do you know what [insert war here] was really about? This kind of analysis isn’t uncommon or fringe about historical or current conflicts. The first and perhaps most salient recent example would be Iraq, which progressives and the left insisted was really about oil; those with a more conspiratorial bent claimed Dick Cheney’s contractor investments were a motivation, and/or that “‘George Bush made money off the Iraq war.’” Iraq was made possible in part by decades of oil politics, but not primarily motivated by a desire for oil. But I’m not an expert here, which is why I’m pivoting to a conflict I know rather better. 

With this year being the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution, I imagine you will soon be hearing similar “really about” arguments about the Revolutionary War. The 1619 project, thanks to an imperfect and brief reference to Dunmore’s Proclamation and a far more egregious serious of subsequent misrepresentations by irate historians, got glossed by both some supporters and foes as the American Revolution was really about defending slavery. As Nikole Hannah-Jones’s introductory essay originally put it, “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” That was only one part of the project’s many claims, which is good, because it’s wrong. 

This line was later changed to “some of the colonists,” which is accurate. Unfortunately the 1619 Project’s critics were not assuaged, and this probably did not help public reception of appropriate nuance. To briefly summarize a lengthy and contentious series of arguments: the specific claim that some southern elites identified independence with the defense of slavery following Britain’s decision to recruit fugitives from slavery is true. But the American Revolution was also motivated by a critique of what Americans called “slavery” (tyranny), a desire for imperial expansion westward, labor grievances over maritime law enforcement, anger over tax policy, profound liberalism, rank avarice… 

You can perhaps see what I’m getting at here. The American Revolution, which was not the same thing as the American Revolutionary War and had political roots going back to the 1760s concretely and the 1640s (at least) ideologically, was not about any one thing. It was also not really about any one thing– by which I mean, there’s less secrecy here than you might expect. To the extent there is any cover-up, that cover-up happens after the fact. The Confederacy was not embarrassed that it was defending slavery– its descendants were, or felt they had to pretend to be in order to redeem the supposed lost cause. Thomas Jefferson and company professed to be somewhat more conflicted on human bondage, but anger over Dunmore’s Proclamation made it into a rough draft of the Declaration. They’re not hiding much.

(On Thomas Jefferson: a colleague once told me that he respected Jefferson’s intelligence despite abhorring his views. I do not. Jefferson exemplifies the truth that intelligence is a tool and not a virtue. To read Jefferson on slavery is to witness a man perfectly aware of the evil he is doing come up with bullshit reasons to do it anyway. This man whose political philosophy is defined by supposed small government and limits would later massively expand the power of the executive branch. Jefferson is something much more ordinary than he is generally made out to be: a hypocrite who could occasionally turn a phrase well.)

While academics (and in this case journalists) are generally aware that cover-ups usually happen after the fact when discussing historical events, the public is less aware of this when discussing contemporary events. To be fair, a democratic public really does require you to hide more. And who knows, perhaps Marco Rubio’s proximity to the cocaine trade will turn out to reveal some secret motive-- but usually such schemes are too small to be more than a minor part in world-historical events. They can matter profoundly in individuals’ lives! They can tell us a great deal about larger events too. The attempted assassination of John Wilkes in the middle of the eighteenth century, for example, probably would not have changed the history of Britain much either way, but the fact that his enemies tried it is a useful piece of evidence for analyzing their ideology, perception, and power. 

I’m trying to remain in my wheelhouse with the newsletter this year, so I’m cautious about making any specific claims about Venezuela, but there are some things we can say for sure. First, there is no one person in the administration powerful enough to make this stunning breach of international law possible– no, not even the President alone. This kind of act needs to be rendered palatable and imaginable to the many people who have to carry it out; this takes bad lawyers, among other things. While the public does not need to be convinced, those in power either need to be convinced the public is convinced, or feel confident that public opinion does not matter; either state of affairs requires many conditions. 

A short list of things the attack on Venezuela is (as far as I can tell) “about” (that is to say, motivated by): longstanding right-wing anti-communism, imperial ambitions for Latin America, right-wing masculinity applied to international relations, insecurity over Afghanistan, and oil. Especially oil. My father occasionally grumbled, with both irritation and mirth, about a sign/slogan for an oil company in the area I grew up. The company went by Just Oil, but their signs and ads all read Just Oil … and more! Dad thought this was ridiculous (if funny; a bit like Steven Wright, a 2000s comedian whose jokes included a deadpan “why would anyone buy sour cream”). What does that even mean? I agree with his criticism there— I learned that kind of pedantry from him, though I probably render it in a more irritating than endearing form— but it would make for an excellent summary of the motivations behind the attack on Venezuela.

Oil does not mean just oil. While “Iraq is about oil” was at best a clumsy synthesis by critics of the many sordid motivations involved in that invasion, it is now proponents of an American invasion who are engaged in a similar synthesis. Oil is affordability– the price you see every day. Oil is masculinity– none of that woke lithium here folks. Oil is America never forgetting the 70s and Stephen Miller wanting an excuse to deport more people and Marco Rubio finding a reason for regime change and Donald Trump applying “grab ‘em by the pussy” to everything and the entire right’s way of scorning any conception of accountability: we will attack and take the oil because we can.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack I saw some discourse about oil, which seems to have quickly died down as Trump’s literal commitment to taking the oil becomes more obvious; I would not be surprised if arguments about oil as a motivation flare up in the future, whether because we fail to actually “take the oil” or simply as other parts of the story become clear. Like the 1619 project fracas, oil discussion regarding Venezuela is an argument about metanarratives; you can tell as much from what the project’s critics said on other matters. Here’s the 1619 project’s critics in an open letter: “The project also ignores Lincoln’s agreement with Frederick Douglass that the Constitution was, in Douglass’s words, ‘a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT.’ Instead, the project asserts that the United States was founded on racial slavery.” This is an argument about the nature of the Constitution– one I’ll note that Gordon Wood and Woody Holton, a 1619 project defender, were on opposite sides of. (Here I’ll recommend Holton’s excellent 2005 article on money and the making of the Constitution). I have other critiques of the 1619 project’s critics that you’ll be able to find in my book (not the one coming in May, the other one) (except the one coming in May does include that bit about the Constitution, actually). 

My point for the time being is simply that arguments about the causes of events are often arguments about character, sometimes in ways that obscure more than reveal.  If the attack on Venezuela was really about oil, and an extension of America’s sordid history in this hemisphere, then this is another item that can go in the indictment of over a century of American foreign policy, and of capitalism. In contrast, the belief that Venezuela was not “really” about oil is another way to draw a line under the Trump era– this is not normal– and bracket political economy in favor of mere sanity. Someone who was simply greedy or a corporate puppet would not do such a thing (and I think this is true!), so, perhaps, we can resolve this without rethinking everything (even if we might want to). There’s also a desire for nuance, sometimes for nuance’s sake, at work here: history is never just “I want resource X”, and it can be irritating when public consensus flattens reality like that. But that doesn’t make knee-jerk calls for nuance accurate. Sometimes it really is Just Oil (and more!).

It’s unbecoming of… well… anyone to make an argument that vaguely cites only “what I saw on Bluesky”-- which is why I’m not doing that. The person I am speaking of here is myself. I found it impossible to believe this was truly “about” oil until the government was not only saying this was the point (I was not yet convinced), but promising to take actions to extract oil and/or oil wealth in Venezuela. When I say above that this is about more than oil, I don’t mean that as a defense of this earlier denial. We have to recognize how much this is about oil in order to understand the rest; it’s a symbol but also a meaningful causal factor.