More so the CIA picks targets that can't really fight back. How the USA is with Taiwan, China could be analogous with North Korea. Mess with one and you mess with the other inevitably. Plus, has the CIA really ever been a friend to the common people or altruistic in any fashion? The better way to look at them would the US version of the KGB. They serve "national" interests, and anything that gets in the way is a free target.
While one could debate nuance- overall I’m not going to question the assessment. That said, I would say it is less so that the CIA picks fights with those who can’t fight back, and more so that the CIA picks fights with those they see opportunity to strike at and have motive. In other words: If the entire CIA and a South American country were in a 1 on 1 fight force to force- the CIA could likely lose, but the CIA will generally try not to be noticed thus giving no opportunity to fight back, or act when someone has too many more pressing issues to face than deal with the CIA, or enlist a third party, usually by appealing to a mutual benefit from the CIA’s states end goals, and then the target will fight back, but by necessity will usually fight the third party and not necessarily the CIA directly.
Using their ability to instill a sense of authority even when they technically do not have any, the CIA can often compel other entities like the military or agents of the military to act…
.. on their behalf as well. Many wars serve as examples of where the enemy can fight- and may already be engaged in or even winning a fight, but the CIA may still target them because it isn’t so much wether the enemy can fight back or not, it is a question if wether the CIA believes they can get away with what they are trying to do. Not being noticed, being able to pin responsibility on another party or create plausible deniability, or targeting those who are out of favor in public or political opinions are often methods used. The CIA doesn’t seek anarchy as anarchy is the antithesis of control. Destabilizing world powers to a breaking point is not only often impractical, but has ripple effects that can hurt America and CIA interests. No matter the context it generally doesn’t serve US interests to “destroy Russia” or China for example because then you have power vacuums, economic impacts, nuclear weapons and war fighters and materiel potentially lose.
A full occupation MIGHT serve US interests in some theoretical contexts where control could be “transferred” over a functional nation with some disruption but not total disruption and chaos for example. So by virtue of opportunity, return on investment, chances for success, diplomatic blow back, and the complex nature of global society; it tends to be the case that the CIA will target nations with less organization or stability, less global presence, and who by extension generally wouldn’t be considered a direct military threat to the United States. It so happens that the nations who tend to fit the categories that would make them less beneficial for less easily influenced for the CIA to make huge sweeping actions against tend to be countries who also can pose direct and credible military threat to the United States. So it could appear that the CIA only “punches down,” but it’s perhaps more the case that their activities in more formidable seeming nations are often just more subtle…
.. or restricted in scope from things like grand revolutions or assassinations of major political figures etc.and are more intelligence gathering, social influence, and smaller scale operations meant to undermine or weaken versus completely topple.
Using their ability to instill a sense of authority even when they technically do not have any, the CIA can often compel other entities like the military or agents of the military to act…