Would a US military intervention in Venezuela be a good idea?

  Article written by collaborator  Carlos Júnior 

I noticed a growing craze among some Brazilians for the possibility that US President Donald Trump intervened militarily in Venezuela .

A somewhat seductive solution, given the chaotic situation that the country of Simón Bolívar encounters. Once the dictator Nicolás Maduro is reluctant to leave power, the use of force seems to be the only option.

It seems right. The situation is not as simple as it seems and the future scenario does not suggest any quick and comfortable solution. Donald Trump tended to solve the problem through diplomacy. That's true. A military intervention in Venezuela, with the game of crazy weights and counterweights of geopolitics, would be a fault of the American president.

Venezuela is a socialist dictatorship. It's a fact. The Chavez regime nationalized its resources, closed for trade with developed countries and used the army to persecute and murder its opponents. The results of socialist economic management are obvious to anyone with a little historical knowledge and more than two neurons: scarcity of resources, famine, hunger and misery up to the nth degree and subsequent collapse. In addition to wreaking havoc in the country and lacking basic goods and services, the Venezuelan totalitarian regime has ruined the army by providing support against any kind of coup d'état threatening its power. The landscape is hopeless.

Even with such a diagnosis, it is necessary to keep in mind the costs and consequences of a military intervention in Venezuela. Historically, such US military actions have resulted in a bad sheet, though it has sometimes failed. In addition, the US political and financial situation does not allow the president to wage war as his predecessors.

Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama involved the United States in various conflicts. In the first case, wars have always been accompanied by deep economic recessions. Salary costs – whether financial, humanitarian or political – are enormous. For example, the war in Iraq cost just over $ 2 trillion and 4,487 soldiers were killed. On the financial side, this represents nearly half of the federal budget approved in 2017. The US government has an estimated public debt of $ 21.5 trillion. To make another war would be at best imprudent.

The consequences are also not the best. Despite the climate of chaos, the civil war that is much talked about is still not a reality. The Lima group is seeking a diplomatic solution to isolate the dictator Maduro, forcing him to leave power. A US military invasion would not only trigger a war, but would aggravate the problem by forcing government loyal soldiers to deepen the crimes and violations committed under the chavist regime. The Syria is the best example. The then president Barack Obama armed group of armed groups against the Syrian dictator of Bashar al-Assad during the civil war. It was in 2019 and the conflict did not end, resulting in the death of 511,000 people – not to mention that rebel groups gave birth to the Islamic State later.

US troops are generally not welcome in foreign countries. Local people see the US military presence as an affront to the sovereignty of their respective nations. In Islamic countries, the religious component is strong and American occupations and bases are considered as affronts to religion. In the Latin case – more particularly in Venezuela – this fits into the anti-American discourse according to which imperialism is responsible for the fragile economic and social situation of the region. A fight without local support can lead to potential conflict for years, and in previous cases the Americans have not gained anything in return.

"The American Conservative" badertively baderted the possibility of military intervention:

"A military intervention in Venezuela would normally be very unlikely, but in an administration where the President has repeatedly raised the issue. We should take the possibility seriously – absolutely no American interest would be served by a Venezuelan war and would be clbadified as one of the most stupid wars of choice that the United States has ever conducted. Venezuela is an economic summit and a humanitarian crisis, but its government poses no threat to the United States and the one that governs the country is not of vital importance to us. "

The anchor of "FOX News" Stuart Varney was also in this line:

"What should we do, in my opinion, nothing, certainly nothing at the moment. not this mess, it is not our fault and if we intervene in any way whatsoever, we will be accused of "Yankee imperialists". And Latin America would adopt anti-trumpism. "

See the video:

Even though the neoconservatives do not share the same opinion – I included John Bolton's National Security Advisor – the right thing to do is not to use force to solve the problem

  Article written by the contributor  Carlos Júnior