“The Trump administration is now engaged in bringing about regime change in Venezuela, and will be embroiled in a nation-building exercise there for the foreseeable future.”
The really strange part is that I don’t think this follows. Not really. The isolationist bit of MAGAworld will lose its mind if American soldiers start coming home in body bags. The temptation to declare victory and call it a day will be strong.
The one thing we can say with relatively high certainty is that Trump’s policy will be incoherent, and disregard the well being of Venezuelans entirely. The highest likelihood path for U.S. policy is a cyclothymic pattern of disengagement punctuated by violence. The chances of the rump chavista regime just disintegrating without further military action are, I dunno, in the 20-30% range. It wouldn’t surprise me, but it’s not the most likely outcome.
This is thoughtful commentary, thank you Frank. Your point about the legality and whether anyone will care depends very much on the outcome is the most salient IMO. Even I, a staunch libertarian especially when it comes to executive war powers, thought that the Iran nuclear facility bombing was maybe not so bad given that it appears to have been a good outcome for preventing a growing nuclear power. Outcomes matter very much, and I also agree that there is little reason to have any faith in the administration’s ability to shepherd a good one.
The other point I think is important is I recall how very often the retort against Bush Jr’s war in Iraq was “war for oil” which is plausible but debatable.
In this case, Trump is saying it very directly that we want the oil to flow.
I find this concerning for two reasons:
1) it is so morally reprehensible to pursue an invasion for purposes of resource extraction
2) as warming from climate change accelerates, threatening our entire society with destabilizing tipping points like our food system or insurance markets collapsing, a literal war for oil is the very last thing we need.
So, why isn’t installing the rightfully chosen (landslide) leaders from a democratic election just 18 months ago a great thing - while also removing a Castro level dictator that gave China a western hemisphere toe hold?
The US record of "nation-building" is not great. In Germany and Japan, we got lucky that both countries had strong traditions of stable democratic government to build on. The same proved to be true in S. Korea. Does Venezuela have similar traditions? I would say yes. The outcome does not depend on Trump, but the people of Venezuela.
One of the reasons Iraq was such a disaster is that the Bush Administration chose people to run the occupation based on ideology rather than competence. Trump being Trump, he's likely to choose them based on personal loyalty to him, which would be even worse. Imagine "Big Balls" trying to run a country.
This will most likely cost the Republicans the midterm elections. MAGA doesn't believe in foreign wars. They know that the billions spent in these wars are billions that are not going to revitalize rural American, improve our schools and parks, etc. MAGA people are practical about money ( they mostly don't have a lot) and they know who pays for these wars. We do.
Yes its disturbing that he got bamboozled into this. I am guessing its Little Marco who has always been a hawk. Trump used to be very anti-war. He had a businessman's mentality that it was just a huge waste of money and was bad for markets. But somehow the deep state got to him as they have gotten to every president except Trump first term.
Since we do not know and, perhaps, the administration does not know what its next moves will be in Venezuela, it is useless to talk about the "foreseeable future". I suggest removing the term "foreseeable future" from the English language. Unless you believe in Tarot cards or reading goat (or is it bird?) entrails, the future is not foreseeable. However, I do not mean that plans and goals are useless. Success in any initiative requires adherence to the Deming Cycle; Plan - Do - Check - Act. The Trump administration has planned this phase of action in Venezuela quite well whether we agree with it or not. Does the administration have the ability to evaluate what it's accomplished against what it's attempting to do and act accordingly?
More to it - this ties the DSA enemy into a moral pretzel. The Mamdani/AOC set (ascending) are now forced to publicly defend:
1) an election stealer (😱)
2) a represser of his people (😱)
3) a narco state leader (😱)
And this dynamic will accelerate ahead of elections as Trump ties in DSA friendly Mexico, Cuba, Columbia.
Trump will connect immigration + crime + drugs to these socialist regimes. The DSA will reflexively defend them. Trump then gets to tell swing voters: “See, these are the lawless hypocrites you get when you vote Democrat. Even I’m better than them”.
By the time Venezuela is ready for a legitimate government, Trump will be out of office an a democrat will ride in to save the day like they always do 😎
1) Trump plans an attack on Iran which would close the straits of Hormuz and affect the availability of oil and its price. If he captures Venezuelan oil then there is no worry about the price of oil and he can attack Iran.
2) Marco Rubio wants to regime change in Cuba. Cuba depends on Venezuelan oil and the government would probably collapse without it.
“The Trump administration is now engaged in bringing about regime change in Venezuela, and will be embroiled in a nation-building exercise there for the foreseeable future.”
The really strange part is that I don’t think this follows. Not really. The isolationist bit of MAGAworld will lose its mind if American soldiers start coming home in body bags. The temptation to declare victory and call it a day will be strong.
The one thing we can say with relatively high certainty is that Trump’s policy will be incoherent, and disregard the well being of Venezuelans entirely. The highest likelihood path for U.S. policy is a cyclothymic pattern of disengagement punctuated by violence. The chances of the rump chavista regime just disintegrating without further military action are, I dunno, in the 20-30% range. It wouldn’t surprise me, but it’s not the most likely outcome.
This is thoughtful commentary, thank you Frank. Your point about the legality and whether anyone will care depends very much on the outcome is the most salient IMO. Even I, a staunch libertarian especially when it comes to executive war powers, thought that the Iran nuclear facility bombing was maybe not so bad given that it appears to have been a good outcome for preventing a growing nuclear power. Outcomes matter very much, and I also agree that there is little reason to have any faith in the administration’s ability to shepherd a good one.
The other point I think is important is I recall how very often the retort against Bush Jr’s war in Iraq was “war for oil” which is plausible but debatable.
In this case, Trump is saying it very directly that we want the oil to flow.
I find this concerning for two reasons:
1) it is so morally reprehensible to pursue an invasion for purposes of resource extraction
2) as warming from climate change accelerates, threatening our entire society with destabilizing tipping points like our food system or insurance markets collapsing, a literal war for oil is the very last thing we need.
So, why isn’t installing the rightfully chosen (landslide) leaders from a democratic election just 18 months ago a great thing - while also removing a Castro level dictator that gave China a western hemisphere toe hold?
Sorry - this sturm and drang isn’t landing.
The US record of "nation-building" is not great. In Germany and Japan, we got lucky that both countries had strong traditions of stable democratic government to build on. The same proved to be true in S. Korea. Does Venezuela have similar traditions? I would say yes. The outcome does not depend on Trump, but the people of Venezuela.
One of the reasons Iraq was such a disaster is that the Bush Administration chose people to run the occupation based on ideology rather than competence. Trump being Trump, he's likely to choose them based on personal loyalty to him, which would be even worse. Imagine "Big Balls" trying to run a country.
This will most likely cost the Republicans the midterm elections. MAGA doesn't believe in foreign wars. They know that the billions spent in these wars are billions that are not going to revitalize rural American, improve our schools and parks, etc. MAGA people are practical about money ( they mostly don't have a lot) and they know who pays for these wars. We do.
This is the honest truth about this. It will not make him more popular with the base and will alienate independents!
Yes its disturbing that he got bamboozled into this. I am guessing its Little Marco who has always been a hawk. Trump used to be very anti-war. He had a businessman's mentality that it was just a huge waste of money and was bad for markets. But somehow the deep state got to him as they have gotten to every president except Trump first term.
Since we do not know and, perhaps, the administration does not know what its next moves will be in Venezuela, it is useless to talk about the "foreseeable future". I suggest removing the term "foreseeable future" from the English language. Unless you believe in Tarot cards or reading goat (or is it bird?) entrails, the future is not foreseeable. However, I do not mean that plans and goals are useless. Success in any initiative requires adherence to the Deming Cycle; Plan - Do - Check - Act. The Trump administration has planned this phase of action in Venezuela quite well whether we agree with it or not. Does the administration have the ability to evaluate what it's accomplished against what it's attempting to do and act accordingly?
Unlikely to end well? Compared to what?
Lets say you live at the bottom of a sewer pipe. You are stuck. People decide to try and free you. You say "this is unlikely to end well."
That is useless twaddle without the relative assessment of the current situation.
More to it - this ties the DSA enemy into a moral pretzel. The Mamdani/AOC set (ascending) are now forced to publicly defend:
1) an election stealer (😱)
2) a represser of his people (😱)
3) a narco state leader (😱)
And this dynamic will accelerate ahead of elections as Trump ties in DSA friendly Mexico, Cuba, Columbia.
Trump will connect immigration + crime + drugs to these socialist regimes. The DSA will reflexively defend them. Trump then gets to tell swing voters: “See, these are the lawless hypocrites you get when you vote Democrat. Even I’m better than them”.
They do, and will, fall into this trap in 2026.
By the time Venezuela is ready for a legitimate government, Trump will be out of office an a democrat will ride in to save the day like they always do 😎
Two theories. Both may be true.
1) Trump plans an attack on Iran which would close the straits of Hormuz and affect the availability of oil and its price. If he captures Venezuelan oil then there is no worry about the price of oil and he can attack Iran.
2) Marco Rubio wants to regime change in Cuba. Cuba depends on Venezuelan oil and the government would probably collapse without it.