Don't get me wrong. Venezuela's actions are deplorable. However, a nation does not use its military force to protect individual, private economic interests in foreign nations. Oh wait, yes we do, when we're acting in a corrupt manner. Yet our military is to protect our national security, not some American company's money. We don't use it to settle private economic scores, or to express our displeasure with the conduct of other nations.
At most, the State Department might intercede and urge the foreign power to alter its course of action, but that's as far as it should go. That's the only thing that is happening here; it's all that would have happened even under the hawkish Bush admn; and that is as is should be.
Talk of using the military and bombing shit is lunacy from people who are ideologically unhinged.
So far as the company is concerned, I'm not saying that they deserved it or even that they were stupid (maybe on that one, don't know). What I'm saying is that the risks of doing business abroad, especially in the developing world, include even the risk of foreign nations acting unreasonably, arbitrarily, without rationale justification, or even reprehensibly. To be sure, those risks are present even when operating at home, but much higher in the developing world. Such risks are factored in to the cost of doing business, and it isn't the government's job to provide military might to hedge against that risk.
Military action would cost taxpayors more than the value of the lost rigs. We'd spend more bailing out this company than the company would even receive in return FFS.
- wolf