The Trump administration continues to insist that Venezuela’s leftist government poses a serious national security threat. United States officials especially assert that Nicolas Maduro’s regime is deeply involved in the illegal drug trade coming into the United States, including the surge in fentanyl in recent years. Indeed, Trump and his associates maintain that Venezuela’s government is little more than a disguised drug cartel. Washington has invoked the argument to justify an escalating series of attacks on small boats, including fishing vessels, in waters near that country.
Contending that illegal drug trafficking constitutes a national security threat sufficiently serious enough to warrant using the US military against a sovereign country is a dubious argument. Moreover, Venezuela is not a major player in the fentanyl trade.
Unfortunately, threat inflation is nothing new. Three pro-war administrations managed to obtain sufficient support from Congress and the public for military action against tiny, distant North Vietnam, based on the absurd notion that it posed a security threat to the United States. Several recent White House occupants have engaged in similar threat inflation, with respect, to justify wars against designated US adversaries.
The article doesn’t really address any of the reasons why a war against Venezuela would be a mistake. Instead it functions more as a review of America’s history of inflating threats from minor nations to justify wars of regime change. Good summary for anyone who would find such a thing useful, but not really what I was looking for.
I think there actually does need to be more discussion of the strategic landscape of a war with Venezuela, because even on the left it seems like most people are contemplating this purely as a moral hazard - if we do this we’re the bad guys - without also assessing the real human costs. The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan cost thousands of lives, destroyed thousands more, left devastation in their wake and (by no means the most important factor, but still a significant one) ballooned the US national debt by trillions.
Americans balk at the cost of helping Ukraine, but it’s pennies on the dollar compared to the cost of the “War on Terror”, is doing massive damage to a major adversary, and hasn’t cost a single American life. But now you all want to send your boys (I’d say “and girls” but Hegseth won’t be having any of that) to die in a jungle against socialists again, because the last time that went so great?
I agree wholeheartedly. A practical discussion should be had first. Some of the real concerns:
Securing oil for whatever conflict they are brewing. (China probably, whether they view China as a military aggressor or a threat to their hegemony in general).
Energy needs because we are so crazy far behind in our electrical generation.
What will Venezuela, and more importantly their sons after we criminally murder swathes of their people, do? Are we looking at more 9/11? We will certainly deserve it but is their culture setup for such?
How about South America in general?
What about China et al? Will they back Venezuela? The oil there is a very important resource in whatever is coming up.
Then we can moralize.
The dishonesty over the premise is absolutely disgusting though. The action is as well but the lies… that part is weak af.
I don’t think people are wrong to point out how wrong this is morally. I despise how ethics are seen as irrelevant when operating at a large scale. Everything is about the material cost and benefit to us.
The advantage of framing things this way, however, is that a significant portion of this country have demonstrated that they don’t give a shit about morality. So maybe arguments based solely on our own self-interest could convince them. Maybe…