If we place ourselves in the Venezuelan territory, by the speeches that one hears, the leaders of the process apparently know the enemy. In addition to knowing him, they apparently had very precise references on how they were going to operate in their task of reducing the possibilities of carrying out the revolutionary process. They know the enemy and they knew or should know, how they came. Just a few days ago, 45 years of the coup d'état in Chile were completed and the booklet that they applied there with their variants, is the same one that they are applying in Venezuela.
In Chile the confrontation was bloody. In Venezuela and with an economic war, those who know the enemy gave the guns (dollars) to the enemy's pawns and we are waging a war that resembles a little comic.
I suppose, for example, that Vietnam was nothing like Venezuela. Vietnam however, went to that war knowing the enemy but making sure they had the conditions to do it.He did not have the enemy's weapons, but he knew how to create the conditions to overcome those limitations. The tunnels for example, was a way to preserve its most important resource for that war: Man. He knew that the enemy had very sophisticated weapons, but he started from the idea that man and his morals were crucial. The political Directorate knowing the enemy, it was overlooked that the enemy also knew the moral and ethical weaknesses of the adversary and left that front totally open.
He also learned, little detail, that agricultural production was an important factor in maintaining and continuing the war and he paid special attention to that little detail. The resistance depended on the agrarian problem and I put its effort in that. The political leadership knows the enemy, but he forgot (after Chávez) that with a port economy and a delivery of dollars without any control and follow-up, it also made a hole in the project.
If they know the enemy, how is it that they have given him so many comforts in his business and safeguarded his interests?
