I woke up Saturday morning to the shocking news that US President Donald Trump had ordered the US invasion of Venezuela and the removal of its unanimously declared illegitimate president, Nicolás Maduro. I was nearly incredulous when I saw the news. I say nearly only because in the lead-up to Maduro’s removal, Trump had given mixed signals about his intentions in Venezuela. After all, this is a president who relishes keeping his enemies off balance. That might have seemed a good tactic to pressure the Venezuelan caudillo to abandon Caracas for a comfortable retirement in Moscow, some Russian Black Sea resort or the Middle East.

Having served as a senior US diplomat in Iraq during the US occupation of that country and as a member of the US armed forces in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, I witnessed firsthand how such undertakings can quickly turn sour. 

America’s unlearned lessons

The American track record of invading foreign countries, ousting leaders it didn’t like and installing more acceptable ones has not been a good one. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq turned out disastrously for America, despite some initial positive results. Latin America, with the possible exception of the arrest of Panama’s de facto ruler, General Manuel Noriega, in 1989, has been an especially bad region for American adventurism. The expression, “Yanqui go home,” was born south of America’s border some 125 years ago with invasions, covert actions and occupations on some dozen or so occasions, and in some countries — in particular Cuba and Haiti — multiple times. In Nicaragua, where I also served as a US diplomat, people remember America’s history of coming in uninvited. Although some entrenched, well-monied pro-US classes were happy to do America’s bidding, running the country afterwards.

Have the Americans not learned the lessons of history? The long and short answer is that while many Americans have, US leaders become seduced by the idea, “We can do it differently.” In his post-invasion press conference, Trump shockingly declared, “We will run the country.” Even more astonishingly, he said it won’t cost the US anything because US oil companies will come in, revive its flagging oil sector and produce the revenue necessary to get the country back on its economic feet. 

America and the world have heard it all before. Call it the great deception. Somehow, the new crowd — be it Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush, Donald Trump and others before them — believes that American ingenuity and determination “will get it right this time.” It’s a tantalizing mirage that seemingly appears regularly throughout 19th and 20th-century US history. It has reappeared in this century.

It’s worth asking, “Why Maduro?” 

Maduro, as oppressive as he was in his own country, presented no verifiable threat to the US. The effective blockade of tankers carrying Venezuela’s oil abroad, on which Maduro’s regime depended for vital hard currency earnings, would have eventually strangled the nation’s finances and created conditions for Maduro’s fall. Trump’s repeated references in his Saturday press event to Venezuela’s oil resources raise justified concerns for Americans. Is that what this is all about? Doesn’t the US have what it needs? For now, yes. Even so, aren’t there plenty of countries willing to sell America their oil? Yes. Shouldn’t we be investing in renewable energy sources as China and others are now doing? Yes again.

Opposition to invading a foreign country, however, shouldn’t prevent anyone from celebrating the removal of a brutal and much despised dictator, at home, in the region and around the world. Maduro stole the presidential elections in August 2024, which he verifiably lost by a wide margin. He and his autocratic predecessor, Hugo Chávez, destroyed one of Latin America’s most thriving democracies and prosperous economies. Since 2015, an estimated eight million Venezuelans have been forced to flee the country, more than a quarter of its population then. They took refuge mostly in the US but also in neighboring countries and in Europe. They are justifiably celebrating Maduro’s ouster. 

And while he was not the real drug threat the US administration cast him to be — that would be the flow of fentanyl into the US primarily through Mexico — he did little to thwart what modest flows emanated from or passed through his country. And he likely took his cut of the profits. He will deserve whatever judgment the US courts find against him.

Venezuelan governance or American occupation?

So, what comes next? America running the country cannot and should not be the answer. As euphoric as many Venezuelans may be to see Maduro’s departure, they will be anxious to take back the country they began losing in 1998 following Chávez’s first election as president. Many will want to see the real winner of the 2024 election, Edmundo González, in the office he legitimately won. And what of Maria Corina Machado, a hugely popular Venezuelan politician forced into exile by Maduro and the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner? She would have run in the 2024 presidential election had she not been illegally barred and removed from the ballot by Maduro. 

These are all decisions for Venezuelans, not the US. They won’t want the Americans to decide the country’s political and economic future, especially in regards to the management of their oil resources. Now that the usurper of their democracy has been evicted from the presidential palace in Caracas, they do not want it reoccupied by some Yanqui overseer.

Aside from the predictable reaction of Venezuelans to a US occupation, there is the looming question of how the US will do it. The occupation of Iraq was accomplished with more than 150,000 troops and thousands more diplomats, aid workers, various advisers and myriad contractors, not to mention thousands of forces and diplomats from countries that were also involved in the Iraq transition. It was costly and plagued with problems, despite the many experts from the Pentagon, State Department, USAID and elsewhere who eventually were able to manage an acceptable turnover to the Iraqis. Such experts are now long gone from the State; USAID no longer exists. Most in the Pentagon are already preoccupied with Russia’s occupation of Ukraine and threatening behavior toward Eastern Europe, and with America’s major challenge, China. 

Does the US even have the depth of personnel resources with the necessary expertise to effectively manage a peaceful, democratic transition in Venezuela? If, as Trump asserts, America will run the country, then specifically who does he have in mind? What is the plan and who will be in charge of executing it? How long will it take? What resources will be necessary? Even if Venezuela can eventually be self-supporting, its oil sector will likely take years to resume what had once been normal operations.

A democratic transition also assumes that there will be no resistance. Has the Trump administration considered how troops and police forces loyal to Maduro might react? In 2003, the Bush administration didn’t, and America and Iraq paid an enormous price in lives and resources for its unpreparedness. Former Iraqi forces opposed to the US, terrorists from elsewhere in the Middle East and Iran wreaked havoc in the country. There’s no word yet at this early stage, but it’s safe to assume that some, perhaps many, Venezuelans may decide to take up arms against whatever follows, especially if the occupation drags on. Will the US be expected to confront them? If not, then who? And if so, is the US prepared for a protracted, perhaps low-grade guerrilla war? The American people have been down that road before and likely won’t be happy. Nor will neighboring countries.

Another self-inflicted blow to America’s image

International reactions have been predictably critical of Trump’s decision. Some have chosen to be quiet, especially America’s allies. Countries in Latin America are especially angered. Mexico is left to wonder if it may be on Trump’s hit list now. Action against Mexico would be exponentially worse and troublesome for the region and the US. There is also the Panama Canal and Greenland, both of which Trump has claimed should be American. The US action also undermines the world’s opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

So, are we back to the 18th and 19th centuries, when larger nations snatched up smaller ones for no other reason than they just could under whatever guise was fabricated? If so, China’s plans in Taiwan become more probable. Ditto its actions in Myanmar, Rwanda’s in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ethiopia’s in Eritrea. However despicable Maduro, America’s action does not augur well for the rule of law or the international order America helped to establish. America’s already declining image abroad has just taken another major blow, this one self-inflicted, like so many previous.

This is a destructive act for America itself. Congress does not appear to have been consulted. In fact, the US administration may have lied to Congress when its senior representatives told members of Congress that the US does not support regime change or military action in Venezuela. Where and how will the administration get the funding required for running Venezuela? Will an already supine Congress simply give in to an increasingly autocratic president? 

Trump’s MAGA base cannot be pleased. Having supported a president who promised no more wasteful foreign wars, they must now ponder their president having started one of his own. The rest of the country is also feeling unsettled. America has been down this road of foreign wars it started before, only to watch the bus drive off the cliff in terms of lives lost, limited resources expended and increased national debt.

Trump claims he has brought justice to Maduro and Venezuela. At what cost?

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.