President Donald Trump’s threats to topple Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro prove the U.S. has learned nothing from nearly 25 years of misadventures in the Middle East, where our win-loss record makes it painfully clear that regime change unleashes more problems than it solves.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Forcefully breaking the Maduro regime could break Venezuela itself—and spur chaos in our own hemisphere.
The Trump Administration has been ramping up the pressure on Maduro. The U.S. began a massive build-up of military forces in the Caribbean in August and announced a strike on an alleged drug boat off Venezuela’s coast the following month. The strikes have continued since despite the U.S. producing little evidence the boats carry drug runners, and in October Trump confirmed that the CIA is conducting covert operations inside Venezuela.
Then, on Nov. 21, Trump reportedly spoke with Maduro and issued an ultimatum to leave Venezuela within days. The next week Trump declared the Maduro-tied Cartel de los Soles a terrorist group, declared Venezuelan airspace closed, and mused about striking Venezuelan land “very soon.” And on Dec. 10 the U.S. seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela.
The Trump Administration is also reportedly working on day-after plans if Maduro is removed from office, officials told CNN.
It’s still not entirely clear whether Trump’s actions are bluffs to scare Maduro into resigning or genuine precursors to a U.S. attack. But if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing while expecting a different result, then flirting with regime change in Venezuela is madness, given just how miserably Washington’s many attempts have failed in the past.
In Afghanistan, it took a mere eight weeks and just 2,300 U.S. troops, alongside Afghan rebels, to overthrow the Taliban after it refused to hand over 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden. But the war bogged down into a 20-year occupation that reached 100,000 troops at its height and failed to install democracy.
In Iraq, major combat operations to depose Saddam Hussein took less than six weeks, but U.S. forces fought an insurgency for almost nine years before withdrawing in 2011. Three years later, U.S. troops redeployed to fight the Islamic State after it captured roughly 40% of Iraqi territory, with some 2,500 U.S. troops remaining there today.
Together, the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan killed nearly 7,000 U.S. soldiers (and many more Iraqis and Afghans), cost about $4.4 trillion, and discredited the idea of boots-on-the-ground regime change.
The Trump Administration may believe it can use force short of a major invasion to swiftly overthrow Maduro with little to no cost or risk, avoiding the traps of Iraq and Afghanistan. And U.S. forces amassed in the Caribbean—some 15,000 troops, along with aircraft, missiles, drones, and expeditionary equipment—are insufficient for a full invasion. Reading the deployment tea leaves, the immediate threat seems to be airstrikes and special operations missions targeting the regime, though of course, U.S. operations could expand later.
But there are history lessons on that too. In 2011, U.S. and NATO airstrikes toppled Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya at relatively low cost and without any coalition casualties. But destabilizing Libya proved disastrous. The instability helped make Libya a top transit hub for people smugglers, and it remains divided and perenially on the precipe of civil war.
To be clear, Maduro is unpopular and Venezuela’s military is weak. But that doesn’t guarantee that his regime will collapse or that a stable post-Maduro Venezuela will emerge.
The U.S. has avoided the worst spillover effects of its Middle east interventions thanks to its geographical distance from the region, but similar mayhem unleashed in Latin America would almost certainly blow back on the U.S. The irony here is that Trump’s own actions could create a self-fulfilling prophecy, worsening the very problems—migration, drug trafficking—he ostensibly seeks to alleviate.
Venezuela is not the Middle East. It has peaceful neighbors and a long democratic tradition. But its massive oil wealth means that it suffers from the same “resource curse” that has fostered civil war, authoritarianism, and instability in the Middle East. To remove Maduro by force, instead of letting change unfold organically, would be a dangerous gamble that risks entangling the U.S. in a new forever war—this time with higher stakes due to proximity.
Maduro is a tyrant, but the risks of ousting him are substantial. No wonder 70% of the U.S. public opposes military action. On the campaign trail, Trump promised to end forever wars, not start them. Attacking Venezuela would break that pledge—and put America Last.
