Venezuela - "Cakewalk" Scenario
Donald Trump repeatedly campaigned on an "America First" platform that emphasized ending foreign military interventions rather than starting new ones. Throughout both his campaigns, he criticized previous administrations for "endless wars" in the Middle East, promised to bring troops home, and positioned himself as the candidate who would keep America out of new military conflicts. He frequently contrasted himself with more interventionist politicians, claiming he would prioritize diplomacy and avoid the kinds of military entanglements that characterized the Iraq War and other interventions.
The current situation with Venezuela represents a stark departure from these promises. The administration is actively planning potential military strikes inside Venezuelan territory against drug trafficking targets, with some officials viewing this as part of a strategy to remove Maduro from power. This represents exactly the kind of military adventurism Trump claimed he would avoid - using American military force in Latin America against a sovereign nation, risking broader conflict, and doing so without clear congressional authorization. It echoes historical patterns where leaders justify military action through secondary rationales (in this case, drug trafficking) while pursuing broader geopolitical goals (potential regime change).
George W. Bush's administration publicly justified the 2003 Iraq invasion primarily through claims about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and alleged ties to terrorism following 9/11. However, numerous accounts from administration insiders and subsequent investigations revealed that regime change - removing Saddam Hussein from power - was a goal that predated and superseded the WMD rationale. The desire to reshape the Middle East and remove Hussein had been advocated by some officials since the 1990s, but WMDs provided a more legally and politically palatable justification for military action. When no WMDs were found after the invasion, it became clear the stated rationale didn't match the actual motivations, leading to widespread criticism about the war being launched under false or exaggerated pretenses.
The Venezuela situation in 2025 showed remarkable similarities. While the Trump administration publicly frames the military strikes as counter-narcotics operations, multiple sources have reported that officials view weakening or removing Maduro as a key objective, with strikes potentially designed to pressure those around Maduro to oust him. CNNAxios Venezuela's government has explicitly accused the U.S. of using drug trafficking as merely a pretext for regime change and seizing control of Venezuela's natural resources.
Both cases involve administrations led by presidents without significant military experience pursuing regime change while publicly emphasizing different, more defensible justifications. Both also proceeded without full transparency about ultimate objectives and without the kind of congressional debate that major military interventions traditionally require.
But military service is not a prerequisite for effective wartime leadership, and history provides numerous examples of successful leaders who never served in uniform. Franklin D. Roosevelt never served in the military (he had polio which would have prevented it), yet he's widely regarded as one of history's most effective wartime commanders-in-chief during World War II. He managed complex alliance politics with Churchill and Stalin, oversaw strategic decisions across multiple theaters, and selected highly capable military leaders like Eisenhower and Marshall.
Winston Churchill saw combat as a young man, but many other highly effective wartime prime ministers had no military background. Clement Attlee's military service was minimal, yet he served effectively in Churchill's war cabinet. Abraham Lincoln had only brief, uneventful militia service during the Black Hawk War, yet he became perhaps America's greatest wartime president, learning military strategy on the job, eventually finding the right generals, and making crucial decisions about Union war aims and tactics during the Civil War.
The concern with Trump and Venezuela - or Bush and Iraq - isn't necessarily about their lack of military service. It's about the specific decisions being made: launching military operations without congressional authorization, using potentially pretextual justifications, lacking clear post-conflict plans, and appearing drawn to military action without fully considering consequences. A leader with military experience could make these same mistakes, and a civilian leader could avoid them.
Political leaders, particularly presidents, often use fear and strategic exaggeration to build support for their policies.
Senator Arthur Vandenberg's famously advised President Harry Truman in 1947 regarding how to gain congressional support for aid to Greece and Turkey (the Truman Doctrine). Vandenberg told Truman that to get Americans to support intervention against Soviet expansion, he would need to "scare hell out of the American people." Truman did exactly that, framing the situation in stark, apocalyptic terms about the spread of communism, effectively launching the Cold War rhetoric that would dominate American foreign policy for decades.
The phrase, "Clearer Than the Truth", often attributed to Dean Acheson (Truman's Secretary of State), reflects the idea that policymakers sometimes need to oversimplify complex situations to mobilize public support. The actual messy reality of geopolitics gets reduced to clear moral narratives - good versus evil, freedom versus tyranny, security versus chaos.
Both Bush's WMD claims and Trump's current framing of Venezuela fit this pattern perfectly. Bush's administration emphasized mushroom clouds and imminent threats rather than the complex reality of Iraqi capabilities and motivations. Trump's administration frames the Venezuela situation as combating drug cartels that are killing Americans, which is "clearer than the truth" of a complex regime-change strategy involving economic pressure, military positioning, and hopes that Maduro's inner circle will remove him. The pattern persists because it works politically - specific, frightening threats (WMDs, drugs killing Americans) mobilize support more effectively than tedious discussions about geopolitical strategy, resource interests, or the complexities of regime change.
The "warrior ethos" combined with legitimate tactical expertise can produce overconfidence in military solutions to fundamentally political problems. Throughout history, numerous civilian leaders with little or no military background have launched military operations that proved strategically flawed or disastrous. Anthony Eden, the British Prime Minister during the 1956 Suez Crisis, had no military service and orchestrated an invasion of Egypt that became a diplomatic catastrophe, forcing British withdrawal under international pressure. Lyndon Johnson, who never served in combat, escalated American involvement in Vietnam based on flawed assumptions about containment theory and the domino effect, leading to one of America's most divisive and unsuccessful wars. George W. Bush, whose National Guard service was relatively limited, launched the 2003 Iraq invasion based on faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, resulting in a protracted occupation and regional destabilization.
Donald Trump's relationship with the military involves a notable contrast between his public embrace of military imagery and his personal history of avoiding service. During the Vietnam War, Trump received five deferments that kept him from military service. He initially received four educational deferments while attending college between 1964 and 1968. Then in 1968, after graduating from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, he received a medical deferment for bone spurs in his heels. This medical deferment came at a critical time when educational deferments were ending and he would have been eligible for the draft. Trump has given varying accounts over the years about which foot was affected and the severity of the condition. In a 2016 interview, his former lawyer Michael Cohen suggested the diagnosis was obtained as a favor to Trump's father.
Despite his lack of service, Trump consistently displayed a strong attraction to military spectacle and imagery. During his first presidency, he pushed for military parades featuring tanks and troops, inspired by France's Bastille Day celebration he witnessed in 2017. He frequently surrounds himself with generals and military imagery, prefers military-style demonstrations of force, and often uses martial language in his rhetoric. His campaign events and political rallies have frequently featured military themes and veterans prominently.
This pattern - where civilian leaders without combat experience can be particularly drawn to military displays of power while potentially lacking the experiential understanding of military limitations and consequences - is something historians and military scholars have noted throughout history. The current Venezuela situation, with its rapid escalation from diplomatic pressure to lethal military strikes without clear congressional authorization, could be viewed through this lens.
In the Venezuela context, if administration officials or the Secretary of War were to characterize regime change as a "cakewalk" or use similar language, it could signal several concerning dynamics. It could indicate that tactical confidence (ability to defeat Venezuelan military forces quickly) is being confused with strategic confidence (ability to achieve stable political transition). It could suggest that post-conflict stabilization requirements are being minimized or ignored. It could reveal that dissenting professional military opinions about force requirements are being dismissed as excessive caution. Most importantly, it could demonstrate that decision-makers are prioritizing their desired narrative of easy victory over realistic assessment of operational requirements. Just as in Iraq, Venezuelan military forces might indeed collapse quickly, superficially validating the "cakewalk" prediction, but the harder challenges of preventing insurgency, establishing legitimate governance, securing infrastructure, and achieving regional acceptance could emerge only after initial tactical success made reversing course politically difficult.
Political appointees could likely argue that Maduro's regime is a hollow shell sustained only by Cuban intelligence support and a thin layer of corrupt generals. They could point to Venezuela's economic collapse, mass emigration of 7+ million citizens, widespread hunger, and popular discontent as evidence of brittleness. Intelligence assessments selectively highlighting military demoralization, equipment degradation, and potential defectors could be emphasized. Comparisons to Panama 1989 (rapid collapse with minimal forces) could be invoked rather than Iraq or Afghanistan. The talking points could stress that "the Venezuelan people will welcome liberators" and that "we'll be greeted with flowers." Political operatives could minimize post-conflict stabilization requirements, arguing that oil revenue will finance reconstruction and that Venezuelan opposition figures can quickly establish legitimate governance.
Pete Hegseth, the secretary of war, was commissioned as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army National Guard after graduating from Princeton University in 2003. He did not serve in any special forces unit, but participated in a number of active-duty deployments during his time in service, including operations in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2005–2006 he deployed to Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division, where he served as an infantry platoon leader in Baghdad and later as a civil-military operations officer in Samarra. From 2011–2012 he Deployed to Afghanistan, where he served as a senior counterinsurgency instructor at the Counterinsurgency Training Center in Kabul.
Hegseth declared an end to the Department of Defense, announcing a return to the "Department of War" to "restore clarity of mission". During his tenure as Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth has been criticized by military leaders, politicians, and commentators for what they describe as a "gung-ho" or "militaristic" approach to defense policy. This critique has been amplified by his public comments and recent directives, which have generated significant controversy. Hegseth has been a vocal critic of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts within the military, describing them as "woke garbage" that weakens the armed forces. He is on record as saying "the dumbest phrase on planet Earth in the military is 'our diversity is our strength'".
Supporters credit Hegseth with prioritizing the military's core mission: warfighting. They agree with his assessment that the Department of Defense lost focus due to "distractions" and "political correctness". Hegseth's backers support his drive to reinstate what he calls "the highest male standards" for all combat roles and apply them in a gender-neutral way. They contend this will produce a more physically dominant fighting force. Some of Hegseth's supporters argue for fewer restrictions on how soldiers fight. As one outlet noted, supporters of less restrictive rules see them as freeing warfighters to be "the most ruthless".
Venezuelan opposition figures, particularly those who fled to Miami, Madrid, and Bogotá, could provide intelligence that confirms political operative assumptions. Like Iraqi exiles before 2003, they could overestimate their own popular support, underestimate regime resilience, and promise that military units will defect en masse once operations begin. Figures like Juan Guaidó (who claimed presidential legitimacy in 2019) or other opposition politicians could assure Washington that they command loyalty from military officers and can quickly form a transition government. Their intelligence on regime weakness could be simultaneously valuable (they have insider knowledge) and unreliable (they're motivated to paint optimistic pictures to secure intervention). The opposition could promise that militias and Colectivos (regime-aligned paramilitary groups) will dissolve immediately rather than form insurgent cores.
In 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld overruled Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki's recommendation for 400,000-500,000 troops for Iraq, instead deploying approximately 145,000 for initial invasion. Rumsfeld's "transformation" agenda emphasized lighter, more agile forces leveraging technology rather than mass. He dismissed concerns about post-conflict stabilization as defeatist "old Army" thinking. Applied to Venezuela, a similar dynamic could see the Secretary of War and civilian leadership override Joint Staff and service recommendations. Where planners recommended 200,000-250,000 troops for regime change plus stabilization, the decision might be for 80,000-120,000 troops based on assumptions of rapid victory, immediate defections, and minimal post-conflict resistance.
The approved force could emphasize special operations forces, airpower, and rapidly deployable light infantry rather than heavy armored units and large stabilization forces. Initial assault could include perhaps 2-3 brigades of the 82nd Airborne or 10th Mountain Division (8,000-12,000 troops), one Marine Expeditionary Unit (2,200 troops), and significantly expanded special operations task forces (3,000-5,000 JSOC, SF, SEALs, and enablers). Air superiority could be established by carrier aviation and land-based fighters. The plan could call for seizing Caracas, securing key oil facilities, and capturing regime leadership within 72-96 hours. Total ground force deployment might be only 60,000-80,000 troops initially, with vague assumptions about "right-sizing" forces based on conditions. Coalition contributions from Colombia and Brazil could be assumed but not firmly committed.
Professional intelligence analysts at CIA, DIA, and service intelligence agencies could likely provide nuanced assessments acknowledging both regime weakness and post-conflict risks. They could note that while Venezuelan military capabilities are degraded, regime security forces maintain surveillance and repression capacity. Assessments could warn that Colectivos and regime loyalists number in the tens of thousands and could form insurgent cores. Intelligence could highlight that Cuban advisors have spent 20+ years building parallel security structures specifically to prevent military coups. However, senior political appointees could "cherry-pick" intelligence supporting intervention, question analysts' assumptions, and create alternative intelligence cells (similar to the Office of Special Plans in 2002-2003) that provide more optimistic assessments. Dissenting views could be characterized as risk-averse bureaucratic resistance to bold action.
Senior uniformed military leaders, particularly from Army and Marine Corps with recent Afghanistan experience, could privately express concerns about inadequate force levels, unclear political end-states, and post-conflict stabilization requirements. A contemporary equivalent to General Shinseki might testify before Congress that "several hundred thousand troops" could be needed for post-conflict stability. This officer could likely face public criticism from the Secretary of War and civilian officials for being overly cautious and not understanding modern warfare. Flag officers could face career pressure to demonstrate "can-do" attitudes rather than raise obstacles. Some could rationalize that once operations begin, additional forces can be requested if needed (though political dynamics make such requests difficult once optimistic assumptions are publicly committed to). The Joint Staff's operational plans could be overridden by OSD guidance emphasizing smaller footprints.
Within the special forces community itself, there could be significant debate. Tactical operators could be confident in their ability to conduct direct action against regime leadership, train opposition forces, and operate in small teams throughout Venezuela. This tactical confidence is well-founded based on 20+ years of operational experience. However, more strategic-minded SF officers, particularly those who served in SF Group-level planning or as SOF liaisons to conventional forces, could recognize that special operations cannot substitute for adequate conventional force presence in stabilization operations. The lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan is that SF excels at specific missions but cannot secure populations or hold terrain at scale. Unfortunately, the former group's tactical confidence tends to be more politically welcome than the latter group's strategic caution. The Secretary of War's own operational background could likely bias him toward SF-centric solutions even when strategically insufficient.
War gaming and planning could become dominated by best-case scenarios. The exercise could assume that once Maduro is killed or captured and top regime figures arrested, Venezuelan military forces could immediately surrender or defect. Planning could assume that opposition figures could quickly form a transition government commanding popular legitimacy. Oil production could resume within months, generating revenue for reconstruction. Colectivos and regime supporters could accept defeat peacefully. Cuban advisors could evacuate voluntarily. Regional neighbors could provide peacekeeping troops. Each of these assumptions is individually plausible but collectively unlikely. Alternative scenarios involving sustained resistance, political fragmentation, regional opposition, or insurgency could be conducted but dismissed as unlikely "branches and sequels" rather than incorporated into base force planning. The planning culture could emphasize "victory" scenarios while treating stabilization as a separate, less important phase.
The administration could present intervention as a limited operation—"weeks, not months"—to remove a dictator and restore democracy. Costs could be minimized, with claims that Venezuelan oil revenue could finance reconstruction. The humanitarian crisis could be emphasized as justifying intervention. Opposition exile groups could be paraded before Congress and media as evidence of popular support. Comparisons could be made to successful interventions like Panama or Grenada rather than Iraq or Afghanistan. Intelligence on WMD could be unnecessary given Maduro's obvious illegitimacy, but evidence of drug trafficking, terrorism links, or Cuban/Russian influence could be emphasized. Congressional authorization might be sought through framing as counternarcotics operations or humanitarian intervention rather than direct regime change. The political objective could be to minimize perceived costs and risks while maximizing urgency, creating political momentum that overwhelms professional military caution.
The initial invasion could likely succeed rapidly, potentially validating optimistic assumptions in the first 30-60 days. Venezuelan military resistance could be limited, Caracas could fall quickly, and Maduro could be killed, captured, or flee. This tactical success could dominate initial media coverage and political narratives. However, within 3-6 months, the inadequacy of force levels could become apparent. Insufficient troops could mean inability to secure oil infrastructure across vast distances, control of only major urban centers while rural areas remain contested, inability to prevent looting and score-settling, and failure to disarm or co-opt Colectivo militias. Political fracturing among opposition groups could complicate transition governance. Regional neighbors could resist providing peacekeeping troops, viewing the operation as illegitimate. Iranian, Russian, or Cuban support to resistance elements could materialize. The initial 80,000 troops could prove grossly insufficient for a country of 28 million across 912,000 square kilometers.
Once initial operations exposed force inadequacy, the administration could face a political crisis. Requesting the 150,000-200,000 additional troops that military professionals initially recommended could require admitting that original planning assumptions were wrong. This could be politically costly, vindicating critics and contradicting public assurances of a limited operation. The alternative—attempting to muddle through with inadequate forces—could result in deteriorating security, mounting casualties, and mission creep. The Secretary of War could face pressure to resign, creating succession uncertainty. Military commanders on the ground could be blamed for failing to achieve objectives with forces provided, creating civil-military tensions. The force reinforcement debate could consume 6-12 months while conditions deteriorated. Eventually, some additional troops could deploy, but likely still insufficient and arriving after critical post-invasion windows closed. This dynamic precisely mirrors 2003-2007 in Iraq, where inadequate initial forces enabled insurgency development, and the surge came years too late at much higher cost.
The combination of special forces leadership bias, political operative optimism, exile community wishful thinking, and dismissal of military professional caution could likely produce an intervention that achieves rapid tactical success but strategic failure. Venezuela could experience years of instability, insurgency, and political fragmentation. American casualties could mount gradually, maintaining political pressure without decisive resolution. Regional relationships could suffer due to perceived American imperialism. The economic costs could vastly exceed initial projections as oil production recovery proves slower than anticipated and security requirements remain high. The operation could become a sustained commitment lasting a decade or more, contradicting initial promises. Most importantly, the failure to heed military professional advice on adequate force levels could repeat the Iraq pattern, demonstrating that institutional learning from past failures remains incomplete when political incentives favor optimistic assumptions over realistic planning.
The cakewalk originated in the pre-Civil War American South as a dance performed by enslaved African Americans, initially on plantations. Couples would promenade in a grand march with exaggerated, high-stepping movements, often mimicking and satirizing the formal mannerisms of slaveholding whites at balls and gatherings. The enslaved performers would dress in their finest clothes and compete in these performances, with the winning couple receiving a cake as a prize—hence "cakewalk." The dance involved elaborate, strutting steps with backs arched and heads held high. After the Civil War, the cakewalk became popular in minstrel shows and vaudeville, eventually reaching mainstream American entertainment by the 1890s. It became a dance craze in both America and Europe around the turn of the 20th century.
By the early 1900s, "cakewalk" had evolved beyond the specific dance to become an idiom meaning any contest or activity that was extremely easy to win. The logic was straightforward: if you could win a prize (a cake) simply by walking in a stylized manner, the task must be effortlessly simple. The phrase "that's a cakewalk" or "it'll be a cakewalk" entered common American vernacular to describe any undertaking expected to require minimal effort or present no significant challenge. The term carried connotations not just of ease but of confident, almost strutting certainty—you could practically dance your way through the task.
The term entered military planning vocabulary, particularly in American usage, sometime in the mid-20th century. Military planners and officials began using "cakewalk" to describe operations expected to face minimal resistance and achieve objectives quickly with few casualties. The term served multiple rhetorical functions in military and political discourse. It conveyed supreme confidence in American military superiority, suggested that adversaries were so weak or incompetent that defeating them required no serious effort, and implied that extensive planning or large force commitments were unnecessary because victory was assured. The casual, almost dismissive tone of "cakewalk" served to minimize perceived risks and costs when selling operations to political leadership or the public.
The term became particularly notorious in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion. In February 2003, Kenneth Adelman, a former Reagan administration official and member of the Defense Policy Board, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post titled "Cakewalk in Iraq." Adelman argued that liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk, requiring fewer troops and less time than pessimists predicted. He stated: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps." This assessment was widely circulated and became emblematic of the optimistic pre-war planning assumptions. Other administration officials and supporters used similar language, if not the exact term, suggesting that Iraqi forces would quickly collapse, that Americans would be greeted as liberators, and that the operation would be brief and relatively bloodless.
The term has particular appeal in military-political contexts for several psychological and rhetorical reasons. First, it projects confidence and demonstrates resolve—leaders using the term appear decisive and certain rather than hesitant or risk-averse. Second, it minimizes political opposition by suggesting that concerns about casualties, costs, or duration are unfounded worry about a simple operation. Third, it can shame or marginalize dissenting voices, implying that anyone who questions the operation's ease must be either cowardly or ignorant of military realities. Fourth, it creates political momentum by making the operation sound almost trivially easy, thus lowering the perceived threshold for approval. Finally, it serves as a form of psychological warfare, suggesting to adversaries that their defeat is so inevitable that it merits only casual mention, potentially undermining enemy morale.
The problem with describing military operations as cakewalks is that it tends to short-circuit rigorous planning and preparation. If an operation truly will be easy, then extensive contingency planning seems unnecessary, large force commitments appear wasteful, post-conflict stabilization can be improvised, and warning voices can be dismissed as excessively cautious. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where optimistic assumptions drive inadequate preparation, which increases actual operational risks. The term also conflates tactical military victory—which often is relatively straightforward for a technologically superior force—with strategic success, which includes achieving political objectives and establishing stable post-conflict conditions. American forces might indeed achieve a tactical "cakewalk" in defeating organized military resistance, but this says nothing about whether the overall strategic undertaking will succeed.
After the Iraq experience, where the "cakewalk" prediction proved catastrophically wrong (the conventional military phase was indeed brief, but the subsequent insurgency, civil war, and occupation lasted years with thousands of American deaths and hundreds of billions in costs), the term became somewhat toxic in serious military planning circles. Professional military officers learned to be wary when political leaders or officials describe operations as cakewalks, recognizing this as a red flag indicating insufficient appreciation for operational complexity. However, the underlying mindset—that American military superiority can produce quick, clean victories with minimal commitment—remains attractive to politicians seeking low-cost foreign policy solutions. The term itself may be used more cautiously, but the "cakewalk mentality" persists under different language.
In current professional military education and planning, the "cakewalk" concept serves as a cautionary tale. War colleges teach the Iraq case as an example of how optimistic assumptions, dismissal of professional military advice, and conflation of tactical and strategic success can produce strategic failure despite tactical victory. The term has become shorthand for a particular planning pathology: allowing desired outcomes to shape operational assumptions rather than conducting rigorous analysis of actual conditions, capabilities, and requirements. When military professionals hear political leaders or even senior officers describing an operation in "cakewalk" terms—whether using that specific word or similar language like "easy," "quick," "clean," or "surgical"—it triggers trained skepticism and concern that inadequate planning may be underway.
The term "cakewalk" thus carries considerable historical baggage in military contexts—it represents not just an expectation of easy victory but an entire mindset of optimistic planning assumptions, dismissal of complexity, and conflation of tactical and strategic success that has repeatedly produced strategic failures despite tactical victories. Understanding this history helps explain why professional military planners react with concern when operations are characterized in such terms, even when the tactical military matchup does indeed heavily favor American forces.
There's no question that both Saddam Hussein and Nicolás Maduro presided over brutal, authoritarian regimes. Saddam used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians, conducted mass executions, invaded neighboring countries, and ran a police state characterized by torture and repression. Maduro presided over Venezuela's collapse into economic catastrophe, presided over widespread human rights abuses, rigged elections, imprisoned political opponents, and caused millions to flee the country as refugees. From a human rights perspective, both have caused immense suffering to their own populations.
However, history shows that the question of "should they be removed" is separate from "should the U.S. use military force to remove them." The Iraq War demonstrates the gap between moral intention and practical outcome. The invasion did remove Saddam, but the resulting instability killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, created conditions for ISIS to emerge, destabilized the entire region, cost thousands of American lives, and ultimately may have caused more suffering than Saddam himself would have. The absence of genuine WMDs also undermined the legal and moral authority of the intervention.
With Venezuela, officials acknowledge that many of their assumptions about what would happen after Maduro's removal are "highly speculative," and Trump already attempted regime change during his first term and failed. Venezuela is a larger, more populous country than Iraq with significant military capabilities and outside support from Cuba, Russia, and China. It possesses the world's largest proven oil reserves, which complicates motivations and invites accusations of resource extraction rather than humanitarian concern.
Accepting that intervention can be justified against dictators, when to intervene and when not? Why Venezuela and Iraq but not dozens of other oppressive regimes? Who decides? What gives any one country the right to remove another's government? And critically - what comes after? Iraq showed that removing a dictator doesn't automatically produce democracy or stability. The concern isn't that Maduro or Saddam were good leaders worth defending - they weren't. It's that military interventions undertaken without international consensus, honest public justification, congressional authorization, and realistic post-conflict planning may at times create humanitarian disasters worse than the problems they aimed to solve.
Iraq is a mixed bag. Saddam's brutal dictatorship is gone. Iraq now has elections, a constitution, and more political freedom than under Saddam. But the costs were staggering - estimates are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, the country experienced years of civil war and insurgency, ISIS emerged from the chaos, sectarian divisions deepened, millions became refugees, and Iranian influence grew significantly.
Post-WWII Germany and Japan are often cited as models. The U.S. and allies conducted extensive occupations, rebuilt institutions, invested massive resources through programs like the Marshall Plan, and created stable democracies from defeated fascist regimes. South Korea also eventually became democratic, after decades of authoritarian rule following the Korean War, eventually transitioning to democracy and prosperity, though that took until the 1980s. These successes shared certain characteristics: total military defeat of the previous regime, genuine international coalitions and legitimacy, massive long-term resource commitments, no significant armed insurgency against occupation forces, and importantly - these were societies with some prior experience with industrial economies and civil institutions that could be rebuilt.
The challenge with Venezuela is determining which historical precedent it would follow. Experts note the deployed forces aren't large enough for a full invasion of a country twice the size of California, and officials have been vague about post-Maduro plans. Unlike Germany or Japan, there's no total war requiring unconditional surrender, no broad international coalition, and no clear plan for the massive reconstruction investment that made those earlier successes possible.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
