There are tons of better reasons for disliking Abe.
From his perspective, there aren't many reasons not to kiss up to Trump. It doesn't hurt him domestically and I think he can genuinely argue that it's helped Japan diplomatically. It's hard to remember now, but Japan was one of Trump's targets during the 2016 campaign, after all.
There are tons of better reasons for disliking Abe.
From his perspective, there aren't many reasons not to kiss up to Trump. It doesn't hurt him domestically and I think he can genuinely argue that it's helped Japan diplomatically. It's hard to remember now, but Japan was one of Trump's targets during the 2016 campaign, after all.
Everyone was a target of trump if they weren't the philipines, israel or russia.
People talk about the Iranian market, but there's also the US market. Is the US willing to sanction European companies dealing with Iran? if they do, what happens then?
Do you really think the donor class is going to let trump start blind firing sanctions at their customer base? Like congress may be scared of trump's base, but they can't win without guys like the Koch brothers funneling money into the RNC.
The Kochs have sent multiple signals that they would rather have Trump gone or at least opposed, up to even giving money to democrats and running pro-immigration ads in races against hardcore Trumpists, and it seems to have so far had little effect.
The beast is unleashed. And the Kochs and other rich donors are finding that they are mediocre lion tamers.
People talk about the Iranian market, but there's also the US market. Is the US willing to sanction European companies dealing with Iran? if they do, what happens then?
Do you really think the donor class is going to let trump start blind firing sanctions at their customer base? Like congress may be scared of trump's base, but they can't win without guys like the Koch brothers funneling money into the RNC.
The Kochs have sent multiple signals that they would rather have Trump gone or at least opposed, up to even giving money to democrats and running pro-immigration ads in races against hardcore Trumpists, and it seems to have so far had little effect.
The beast is unleashed. And the Kochs and other rich donors are finding that they are mediocre lion tamers.
The lions are going to have a lot less ferocity when they don't get fed.
People talk about the Iranian market, but there's also the US market. Is the US willing to sanction European companies dealing with Iran? if they do, what happens then?
Do you really think the donor class is going to let trump start blind firing sanctions at their customer base? Like congress may be scared of trump's base, but they can't win without guys like the Koch brothers funneling money into the RNC.
The Kochs have sent multiple signals that they would rather have Trump gone or at least opposed, up to even giving money to democrats and running pro-immigration ads in races against hardcore Trumpists, and it seems to have so far had little effect.
The beast is unleashed. And the Kochs and other rich donors are finding that they are mediocre lion tamers.
The lions are going to have a lot less ferocity when they don't get fed.
Meanwhile, the left is bloodthirsty, and they don't need a donor class to be so.
Just remember that incident before getting too wrapped up in Abe’s feelings about Trump
I distinctly remember that Japanese translators were shitting their pants because it was a fine line of 'interpreting' what trump said vs fears they were risking their jobs and might get accused of being bad at translating if they actually translated what how he spoke. I'm sure theres some fine line when it comes to political heads of state and translation, but this was more 'I can't actually translate that word salad without being called a fraud'
RE Trump on foreign policy and the establishment, including establishment donors turning against him: I think there was an assumption on the part of most of the establishment that Trump was either
1. engaging in preference falsification (lying about his policy preferences) to leverage a specific, underserved voting block (an intersection of socially conservative, economically liberal domestically, but some level of protectionist/nationalist on FP) and that when he took office he would conform to the Washington Consensus and the FP establishment like his predecessors
2. held policy preferences, especially in the foreign policy realm, which were actually unpopular with the vast majority of voters
I think maybe there is some merit to the first but if it's the second then I think it was a gross miscalculation borne from biases we hold as being part of the establishment. Most voters don't prioritize foreign policy like we (the FP establishment or those who align with the FP establishment) might. Most voters might not see the inherent value in a "Deep Engagement"/Liberal Interventionist/Internationalist approach to foreign policy and don't operate with that world view, and practitioners in the establishment tend to view the Liberal World Order and the US's leadership role in building and maintaining it as having inherent value and concretely contributing to American security. We don't regularly question our underlying assumptions here, and I suspect that for most US voters they might not be so amenable to such an approach to foreign policy which is why the rhetoric of "bring the troops home" and similar didn't start with Trump. As I posted earlier in the thread, I think there's also starting to be a turn against free trade as the voices of the losers, so to speak, starts to gain volume. I think this is indicated by Warren's essay in Foreign Affairs in which she pushes back against free trade in a way the establishment typically doesn't. I also think for the majority of voters there's an inherent understanding of what security means which is different from what the establishment (which we are neck deep in a Liberal Internationalist/Interventionist world view) argues it means. Voters may not be able to articulate it using the appropriate jargon, but I think there's an inherent understanding of the so called Stopping Power of Water and the security situation of the US is strong (something they would probably agree with the establishment on generally). I also think if you put up a more Realist Off Shore Balancing or Defensive Realist grand strategy for the US against Deep Engagement which is the current status quo, us FP establishment types might (or on the part of some might not) be surprised by the response of most voters.
As to why the first may have had more merit, so to speak, in my view is because of the previous administration. Obama campaigned on a different approach to foreign policy than the "Deep Engagement" of administrations past and in effect capitulated to "the blob" (a deputy national security adviser from Obama's cabinet is attributed with coining this term) for the most part just because of the institutional inertia. I think many in the establishment felt that even if Trump won he would follow the same path. I think maybe it felt like a safe bet for the establishment.
I think it’s mostly that lots of the levers “the blob” would normally have at their disposal aren’t as effective w/r/t the trump administration. One effect of the brain drain at state and other agencies has been to cut the administration off from the FP establshment. And trump himself obviously has no interest in the kind of collaborative process where the remaining influencers could be most effective.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I’ve been wondering why Abe seems to always be caught with tongue a full two feet up Trumps ass.
Is Japan-US relations not in a good enough resting state that it would hit Japan somehow if Abe stopped kissing ass for one moment?
It’s really difficult not to dislike Abe for how he’s handling Trump.
Why would you antagonize the US President if you didn't have to? It's a stupid stupid move that doesn't benefit your country.
Remember that everyone else has to deal with Trump and most aren't in a position to just write off US-<insert their country here> relations.
And with Trump heading off to meet his best buddy Kim soon, reminding the buffoon in the White House that "Hey, you know if you pull out of South Korea, we're probably fucked too", isn't a bad move diplomatically.
Especially given in 2017, North Korea lobbed at least two nuclear capable ballistic missiles into Japanese waters.
Obviously, South Korea is the most threatened. But Japan trying to keep the President on-side, all for some minor praise that won't really harm Abe domestically? He'd be stupid not to.
I think it’s mostly that lots of the levers “the blob” would normally have at their disposal aren’t as effective w/r/t the trump administration. One effect of the brain drain at state and other agencies has been to cut the administration off from the FP establshment. And trump himself obviously has no interest in the kind of collaborative process where the remaining influencers could be most effective.
A major contributor to this is the difference in world view. Trump, again even if he can't articulate it in the appropriate IR jargon, is operating from a Realist world view. He's not going to be swayed by the argument that international institutions are inherently valuable or that a favorable world order is more valuable than defense of the homeland and economic prosperity (with two differing conceptions of economic prosperity in this case, one being liberal free trade market economy, the other being more nationalist protectionist market economy or at least the room to put pressure on trading partners via protectionism).
And from an "insider's point of view", so to speak, I think the issue is that we (the establishment) take these assumptions for granted and have a tough time coming to terms with having to actually sit down and articulate and defend our underlying assumptions about foreign policy.
+2
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I’ve been wondering why Abe seems to always be caught with tongue a full two feet up Trumps ass.
Is Japan-US relations not in a good enough resting state that it would hit Japan somehow if Abe stopped kissing ass for one moment?
It’s really difficult not to dislike Abe for how he’s handling Trump.
Why would you antagonize the US President if you didn't have to? It's a stupid stupid move that doesn't benefit your country.
Remember that everyone else has to deal with Trump and most aren't in a position to just write off US-<insert their country here> relations.
Importantly I do not mean antagonizing him. I mean he seems to go out of his way to kiss his ass.
What's the difference? Japan wants the US to play ball. Kissing Trump's ass accomplishes that better then the alternatives, as we've seen elsewhere. And if it doesn't hurt Abe's domestic support, why wouldn't you do it? That's just looking out for the people he represents (ie - Japan).
I’ve been wondering why Abe seems to always be caught with tongue a full two feet up Trumps ass.
Is Japan-US relations not in a good enough resting state that it would hit Japan somehow if Abe stopped kissing ass for one moment?
It’s really difficult not to dislike Abe for how he’s handling Trump.
Why would you antagonize the US President if you didn't have to? It's a stupid stupid move that doesn't benefit your country.
Remember that everyone else has to deal with Trump and most aren't in a position to just write off US-<insert their country here> relations.
Importantly I do not mean antagonizing him. I mean he seems to go out of his way to kiss his ass.
Again consider the situation with Akie Abe, who speaks English well, pretending not to understand English to get out of having to talk to Trump during a dinner early in his term for an indication of how the Abes really feel about him.
I wouldn’t get too worked up over Shinzo’s act here.
+6
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Abe's domestic position is rock solid. He was just reelected as his party's president and the opposition have no credibility.
Quick Wikipedia shows some nasty Labor-style infighting on the opposition so Abe only has to worry about keeping NK from attacking his country. Which, you know, is kind of a priority.
Abe's domestic position is rock solid. He was just reelected as his party's president and the opposition have no credibility.
Quick Wikipedia shows some nasty Labor-style infighting on the opposition so Abe only has to worry about keeping NK from attacking his country. Which, you know, is kind of a priority.
Their last time in power (2009 to 2012) absolutely discredited them with the public. They've spent the time since splitting, merging, and changing their name as they try to convince the public that they've changed and deserve to get another shot.
The most recent poll shows that 37.1% of the public backs Abe's party. Which sounds bad, but only until you see that the next highest party has 5.7%.
With numbers like those, he has a free hand for dealing with Trump. Though I guess it could be argued that this might ultimately hurt him in his quest for constitutional revision.
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
(Aaron Mate is a contributor to The Nation, but I'm just posting this because he's quoting from a book.)
Page 136 of McCabe's new book, recounting a 2017 Oval Office meeting: "Then the president talked about Venezuela. That’s the country we should be going to war with, he said. They have all that oil and they’re right on our back door."
I wonder if this tidbit will make it into the news cycle considering the crisis in Venezuela going on right now. It's the same bullshit Trump used to say publicly about Iraq. Take the oil! Like, he really is stupid enough to start a war because he thinks he'll get to loot the other country afterwards.
+5
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
CNN reports that Americans have been arrested in Haiti
Port-au-Prince, Haiti (CNN)Haiti Foreign Minister Bocchit Edmond confirmed Monday that five Americans on the island have been arrested.
Three other people also have been arrested, two foreign nationals and one Haitian, Edmond said.
The identities of the people taken into custody were not immediately available.
Haiti's police chief, Michel-Ange Gédéon, told CNN the eight individuals are being held for what he described as possession of illegal weapons.
Earlier, local authorities told CNN the Americans were being held on conspiracy charges. The foreign minister did not confirm the conspiracy charges.
The country's capital, Port-au-Prince, has been rocked by deadly protests since February 7. Haitians have been on the streets, torching cars, clashing with police demanding President Jovenel Moise and the prime minister resign.
In an interview with CNN, Gédéon said the individuals arrested were in possession of automatic weapons, pistols, satellite phones and drones.
Gédéon said the people were taken into custody Sunday night while in suspicious cars without license plates.
Police found that the vehicles were carrying six automatic rifles, six pistols, two professional drones and three satellite phones. They also found a telescope, backpacks, gun vests, professional tapes and documents, he said.
“There were a lot of documents,” he said. This also includes a list with names, a police source said.
Asked what they were doing in Haiti, the men told police “they were on a mission, and they didn’t have to speak to us,” Casseus said. “They said they were on a government mission.”
The men, he said, didn’t specify which government had hired them. But at one point, they told officers that “their boss would call our boss,” he said. Soon a third vehicle arrived with another individual, this one speaking French. He too was arrested.
“We used professional force to show them that we are serious,” Casseus said. “We then took them to the police station.”
Two sources have told the Herald that following the arrest, several individuals connected with the Moise administration have tried to get the men released. One even claimed that the men were there to do a security operation for the central bank. A check with the bank’s governor by police, however, revealed he was unaware of their presence.
“They have refused to speak,” Casseus said of the men. “They’ve said they don’t have to speak.”
Casseus, 46, said he doesn’t know how long the men were in town, and added their passports did not show any entry stamp for Haiti. However, their visas show they had visited several other countries prior to arriving in Haiti.
(Aaron Mate is a contributor to The Nation, but I'm just posting this because he's quoting from a book.)
Page 136 of McCabe's new book, recounting a 2017 Oval Office meeting: "Then the president talked about Venezuela. That’s the country we should be going to war with, he said. They have all that oil and they’re right on our back door."
It's not surprising. It's an idea which is heavily tied into a Realist world view: Our security is tantamount, oil is key to maximizing our security, a weaker state has a lot of it, we should take it.
Just like looking at the inside discussions from the Bush administration about the mindset (among multiple reasons, that being the leader of a favorable world order and maintaining credibility for enforcing it sometimes we just have to beat an illiberal regime into dust to remind the other illiberal regimes who's boss) behind the invasion of Iraq is inextricably tied to the Liberal Interventionist/Internationalist world view and Deep Engagement.
I’m sure the Venuzuelan people will welcome the US as liberators, will gladly share of their bountiful oil resources, and military action there will in no way lead to catastrophic loss of life, military and innocent civilians alike.
Realistically.
Like... sure, yeah, might makes right, let’s light some shit up and ransack the place. /s
Aren’t there some international treaties about not doing that, or was the US not a signatory to those? Or are we just at the point where it’s expected they’ll cast them aside when it becomes inconvenient? I honestly don’t know.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Nah. I am pretty sure Trump means literally and physically taking the oil like the US is Carmen Sandiego rather than just getting control over it, ensuring the spice flows, or US companies get to exploit it more.
+16
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Nah. I am pretty sure Trump means literally and physically taking the oil like the US is Carmen Sandiego rather than just getting control over it, ensuring the spice flows, or US companies get to exploit it more.
Considering that US companies were exploiting virtually all of it prior to the sanctions put in place by this administration...
Nah. I am pretty sure Trump means literally and physically taking the oil like the US is Carmen Sandiego rather than just getting control over it, ensuring the spice flows, or US companies get to exploit it more.
Yeah, Trump says this about every country. This is just Trump saying shit, as usual.
It's entirely possible that there was a foreign policy consensus that Maduro was unstable and between screwing over other companies engaging in joint ventures with PDVSA and collapsing the domestic oil production of the country, therefore regime change would allow for more Western control of production to ensure the oil actually flowed and paid who it was supposed to.
This doesn't mean Maduro isn't awful or that Trump's position of "go to war to take their oil" isn't worse, but I wouldn't really say that Venezuela's oil production was already being exploited by US countries, at least not relative to its potential.
Nah. I am pretty sure Trump means literally and physically taking the oil like the US is Carmen Sandiego rather than just getting control over it, ensuring the spice flows, or US companies get to exploit it more.
I think he literally means just going in building a big wall around the oil field with a sign that says “The oil - property of America” then somehow exploiting that without any resistance or input from the locals.
Nah. I am pretty sure Trump means literally and physically taking the oil like the US is Carmen Sandiego rather than just getting control over it, ensuring the spice flows, or US companies get to exploit it more.
I think he literally means just going in building a big wall around the oil field with a sign that says “The oil - property of America” then somehow exploiting that without any resistance or input from the locals.
That’s how resorts work. Trump is just projecting the model he knows.
Nah. I am pretty sure Trump means literally and physically taking the oil like the US is Carmen Sandiego rather than just getting control over it, ensuring the spice flows, or US companies get to exploit it more.
I think he literally means just going in building a big wall around the oil field with a sign that says “The oil - property of America” then somehow exploiting that without any resistance or input from the locals.
No, what he literally means is he thinks the US should go in there, load all of Venezuela's oil onto a truck or ship or something and then bring it back to the US. Like, not as a continuous process but as a thing you do and then you have all their oil.
It's weird how he's stuck on the oil since the US has no reason to really care about Venezuelan oil except in terms of global prices
I've always been skeptical of the "US produces lots of oil -> US doesn't care about foreign oil" argument. As you imply, oil is a global market. Many of the massive corporations involved have stakes in fields throughout the world. We generally acknowledge that huge multinational corporations have a great deal of influence over US government policy, so if they care, Washington probably cares. To say nothing of the geopolitics of oil and how Washington views its utility in terms of advancing hegemony/global influence.
The idea that US policy toward Venezuela wouldn't have anything to do with oil strikes me as absurd given the continued dependence of the global economy on fossil fuels.
Posts
From his perspective, there aren't many reasons not to kiss up to Trump. It doesn't hurt him domestically and I think he can genuinely argue that it's helped Japan diplomatically. It's hard to remember now, but Japan was one of Trump's targets during the 2016 campaign, after all.
Everyone was a target of trump if they weren't the philipines, israel or russia.
Just remember that incident before getting too wrapped up in Abe’s feelings about Trump
The beast is unleashed. And the Kochs and other rich donors are finding that they are mediocre lion tamers.
The lions are going to have a lot less ferocity when they don't get fed.
Meanwhile, the left is bloodthirsty, and they don't need a donor class to be so.
I distinctly remember that Japanese translators were shitting their pants because it was a fine line of 'interpreting' what trump said vs fears they were risking their jobs and might get accused of being bad at translating if they actually translated what how he spoke. I'm sure theres some fine line when it comes to political heads of state and translation, but this was more 'I can't actually translate that word salad without being called a fraud'
Meanwhile, Marco Rubio and Co. were on the Venezuelan-Colombian border yesterday:
And there's going to be a Trump speech at the Florida International University about Venezuela:
1. engaging in preference falsification (lying about his policy preferences) to leverage a specific, underserved voting block (an intersection of socially conservative, economically liberal domestically, but some level of protectionist/nationalist on FP) and that when he took office he would conform to the Washington Consensus and the FP establishment like his predecessors
2. held policy preferences, especially in the foreign policy realm, which were actually unpopular with the vast majority of voters
I think maybe there is some merit to the first but if it's the second then I think it was a gross miscalculation borne from biases we hold as being part of the establishment. Most voters don't prioritize foreign policy like we (the FP establishment or those who align with the FP establishment) might. Most voters might not see the inherent value in a "Deep Engagement"/Liberal Interventionist/Internationalist approach to foreign policy and don't operate with that world view, and practitioners in the establishment tend to view the Liberal World Order and the US's leadership role in building and maintaining it as having inherent value and concretely contributing to American security. We don't regularly question our underlying assumptions here, and I suspect that for most US voters they might not be so amenable to such an approach to foreign policy which is why the rhetoric of "bring the troops home" and similar didn't start with Trump. As I posted earlier in the thread, I think there's also starting to be a turn against free trade as the voices of the losers, so to speak, starts to gain volume. I think this is indicated by Warren's essay in Foreign Affairs in which she pushes back against free trade in a way the establishment typically doesn't. I also think for the majority of voters there's an inherent understanding of what security means which is different from what the establishment (which we are neck deep in a Liberal Internationalist/Interventionist world view) argues it means. Voters may not be able to articulate it using the appropriate jargon, but I think there's an inherent understanding of the so called Stopping Power of Water and the security situation of the US is strong (something they would probably agree with the establishment on generally). I also think if you put up a more Realist Off Shore Balancing or Defensive Realist grand strategy for the US against Deep Engagement which is the current status quo, us FP establishment types might (or on the part of some might not) be surprised by the response of most voters.
As to why the first may have had more merit, so to speak, in my view is because of the previous administration. Obama campaigned on a different approach to foreign policy than the "Deep Engagement" of administrations past and in effect capitulated to "the blob" (a deputy national security adviser from Obama's cabinet is attributed with coining this term) for the most part just because of the institutional inertia. I think many in the establishment felt that even if Trump won he would follow the same path. I think maybe it felt like a safe bet for the establishment.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Why would you antagonize the US President if you didn't have to? It's a stupid stupid move that doesn't benefit your country.
Remember that everyone else has to deal with Trump and most aren't in a position to just write off US-<insert their country here> relations.
And with Trump heading off to meet his best buddy Kim soon, reminding the buffoon in the White House that "Hey, you know if you pull out of South Korea, we're probably fucked too", isn't a bad move diplomatically.
Especially given in 2017, North Korea lobbed at least two nuclear capable ballistic missiles into Japanese waters.
Obviously, South Korea is the most threatened. But Japan trying to keep the President on-side, all for some minor praise that won't really harm Abe domestically? He'd be stupid not to.
A major contributor to this is the difference in world view. Trump, again even if he can't articulate it in the appropriate IR jargon, is operating from a Realist world view. He's not going to be swayed by the argument that international institutions are inherently valuable or that a favorable world order is more valuable than defense of the homeland and economic prosperity (with two differing conceptions of economic prosperity in this case, one being liberal free trade market economy, the other being more nationalist protectionist market economy or at least the room to put pressure on trading partners via protectionism).
And from an "insider's point of view", so to speak, I think the issue is that we (the establishment) take these assumptions for granted and have a tough time coming to terms with having to actually sit down and articulate and defend our underlying assumptions about foreign policy.
Importantly I do not mean antagonizing him. I mean he seems to go out of his way to kiss his ass.
What's the difference? Japan wants the US to play ball. Kissing Trump's ass accomplishes that better then the alternatives, as we've seen elsewhere. And if it doesn't hurt Abe's domestic support, why wouldn't you do it? That's just looking out for the people he represents (ie - Japan).
Again consider the situation with Akie Abe, who speaks English well, pretending not to understand English to get out of having to talk to Trump during a dinner early in his term for an indication of how the Abes really feel about him.
I wouldn’t get too worked up over Shinzo’s act here.
I’ll still dislike him a lot for it personally.
Maybe part of it is to divert from that, if it's the case
Gotta play the game. It's not other country's fault the US put Trump is charge. They just gotta deal with that reality.
Quick Wikipedia shows some nasty Labor-style infighting on the opposition so Abe only has to worry about keeping NK from attacking his country. Which, you know, is kind of a priority.
And some Presidential tweets:
Their last time in power (2009 to 2012) absolutely discredited them with the public. They've spent the time since splitting, merging, and changing their name as they try to convince the public that they've changed and deserve to get another shot.
The most recent poll shows that 37.1% of the public backs Abe's party. Which sounds bad, but only until you see that the next highest party has 5.7%.
With numbers like those, he has a free hand for dealing with Trump. Though I guess it could be argued that this might ultimately hurt him in his quest for constitutional revision.
(Aaron Mate is a contributor to The Nation, but I'm just posting this because he's quoting from a book.)
I know it's like every day with this guy, but reminder this shit is so far outside the norm it sounds like parody at times.
Buries the lede and includes no pics of the huge fucking arsenal they were caught with. The Miami Herald does better:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article226440260.html
It's not surprising. It's an idea which is heavily tied into a Realist world view: Our security is tantamount, oil is key to maximizing our security, a weaker state has a lot of it, we should take it.
Just like looking at the inside discussions from the Bush administration about the mindset (among multiple reasons, that being the leader of a favorable world order and maintaining credibility for enforcing it sometimes we just have to beat an illiberal regime into dust to remind the other illiberal regimes who's boss) behind the invasion of Iraq is inextricably tied to the Liberal Interventionist/Internationalist world view and Deep Engagement.
Realistically.
Like... sure, yeah, might makes right, let’s light some shit up and ransack the place. /s
Aren’t there some international treaties about not doing that, or was the US not a signatory to those? Or are we just at the point where it’s expected they’ll cast them aside when it becomes inconvenient? I honestly don’t know.
Considering that US companies were exploiting virtually all of it prior to the sanctions put in place by this administration...
Yeah, Trump says this about every country. This is just Trump saying shit, as usual.
This doesn't mean Maduro isn't awful or that Trump's position of "go to war to take their oil" isn't worse, but I wouldn't really say that Venezuela's oil production was already being exploited by US countries, at least not relative to its potential.
I think he literally means just going in building a big wall around the oil field with a sign that says “The oil - property of America” then somehow exploiting that without any resistance or input from the locals.
That’s how resorts work. Trump is just projecting the model he knows.
No, what he literally means is he thinks the US should go in there, load all of Venezuela's oil onto a truck or ship or something and then bring it back to the US. Like, not as a continuous process but as a thing you do and then you have all their oil.
The idea that US policy toward Venezuela wouldn't have anything to do with oil strikes me as absurd given the continued dependence of the global economy on fossil fuels.