Why Trump's Venezuela Adventurism is a Strategic Disaster

“Only time will tell,” mused U.S. President Donald Trump when asked how long Washington would run Venezuela and manage its oil during a New York Times interview in the Oval Office on January 7. That statement came just days after the shock U.S. assault on Caracas that resulted in the kidnapping of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro to the United States. The act marks yet another unrestrained and ill-devised act of extraterritorial overreach ordered by the Trump administration.

While that general premise is not necessarily incorrect, this mindset and the actions attached to it reflect not the philosophy of a restrained foreign policy but many aspects of the failed and disastrous ideological current known as neoconservatism. This foreign policy doctrine believes in “might makes right,” demanding intervention in all corners of the world to advance supposed U.S. interests under the guise of nation building, democracy promotion, and moral superiority. It is deeply rooted in conceptualizations of U.S. exceptionalism, based on the understanding that Washington has a divine right to remake the world in its image – regardless of the world’s opinion.

To be clear, the Trump administration does not fully adopt this ideology, given its clear distaste for democracy promotion. Still, the overall mindset of intervention is the same. This thinking produced the so-called “War on Terror” and all its disastrous results, including the failed Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. The outcome speaks for itself: thousands of American lives lost, millions more dead around the world, destroyed societies, expanded anti-Americanism resulting from the civilian harm caused, and trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars lost in ill-fated attempts to remake less powerful countries at the end of a barrel.

No amount of fuzzy language – such as “limited operation” or “no boots on the ground” – can or should shield this administration from these facts, nor criticism of its failure to leave interventionist impulses at the door. The American people are again asking a simple question: “How does this end?”

Yet, this administration appears unable to consistently respond to criticism, let alone concern, about its actions and strategy. Senior officials like Vice President JD Vance and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio mention the tactical success of the Venezuela operation without describing a clear roadmap for the future. If there is any singular lesson to learn from the failures of the War on Terror, it is that such tactical victories rarely, if ever, equate to a strategic victory. There is little reason to expect that things will be different this time.

When the president of the United States offers wide-ranging reasoning for ongoing intervention in and control of a sovereign state in Washington’s backyard, it should raise eyebrows, especially when that rhetoric threatens the option of boots on the ground and lays the groundwork for mission creep. When he goes on to threaten the same use of force in Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, and even Greenland, it warrants real efforts to restrain executive action that could lead the United States to intervene militarily around the world as it pleases, much to the expense of real U.S. interests, strategic and political capital, resources, and badly needed domestic focus.

Ultimately, such actions come with strategic consequences that often go unaccounted for in planning, no matter the depth of that planning. Given this administration regularly and willingly touts successes before they are real – take Trump’s consistent reference to resolving 7 or 8 wars as most continue unabated – it is reasonable to assume that Washington is once again putting the cart before the horse in Venezuela.

Whether that means further destabilization in a large country just to the south of the United States remains to be seen but is highly likely. Will this administration, hellbent on “controlling the oil,” be able to address the fallout – the likes of which could be serious displacement and northern migration and potential internal conflict that spills over borders, welcoming the very gangs and cartels that Washington claims to be fighting – when it ultimately comes to a head? History suggests otherwise, presenting concerning risks for the future of U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere.

Alexander Langlois is a Contributing Fellow at Defense Priorities.