Operation What Now? The geopolitical ramifications of the American raid on Maduro and Venezuela

Chess not checkers

First and foremostly, it must be acknowledged that the U.S military carried out an extremely successful tactical operation. This article will not criticize the professionalism or effectiveness of the U.S. Special Operations Forces, or the armed forces in general, achieving a remarkable tactical victory. Within three hours, U.S forces had captured Nicolás Maduro and brought him into custody, without a single American service member being killed in action. By any military measure, this was a complete and utter tactical success.

However, the U.S has rarely had trouble with the immediate kinetic phase of conflict. The Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq amongst countless others, are clear examples of military efficiency and triumph, as it seems only the United States military can. The raid itself isn't the problem. It's what it means for strategy that is. What happens next? Unfortunately, the U.S foreign policy establishment has been unable to answer this question for a very long time.

In the past, different administrations have gone into conflict without a clear plan for what to do after the conflict ceases, instead relying on vague endstates and poorly defined measures of success. This lack of strategy led to long-lasting quagmires in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the so-called "forever wars", where policies that were aimless, unrealistic, and often contradictory lasted for years. These wars cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. They had ZERO positive impact on the safety, security and the political interests of American citizens. The American foreign policy "blob," military leaders, and political establishment should all know that doing the same thing in Venezuela will likely lead to disaster.

Moreover, for more than 80 years, U.S. foreign policy experts have been obsessed with leadership and regime change as a way to solve complicated political problems. However, this has often made the problem even worse. As the former CIA intelligence analyst Larry C. Johnson put it, “the notion that all we have to do is replace one guy, and everything will be fixed…is not true”. John Mearsheimer seconds this line of argument by stating that the United States overthrew governments eighteen times during the Cold War, "and not in one single case did we [the United States] produce a stable liberal democracy at the end of the process." The historical record is clear. These kinds of interventions don't make things better, they make things worse. The overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran, Hussein in Iraq, and Gaddafi in Libya are poignant examples in the historical record. It would be foolish for the Trump administration to think that Venezuela would be any different.

In the end, the effects of this event are what really matter, not the raid itself. Carl von Clausewitz, the famous Prussian military theorist, said that "war is the continuation of politics by other means." If that's the case, the Trump administration needs to clearly explain what its political goal is and how this action helps U.S. national security interests. Sadly, there isn't much proof that such a plan exists.

A Pyrrhic victory for the United States

It is important to recognize that the United States has real economic and ideological interests in Venezuela. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, but it only produces a fraction of an amount compared to other OPEC countries. The United States would have a huge economic opportunity if it could control these reserves. Venezuelan crude is also mostly heavy oil, which is perfect for U.S. refineries as their refinery infrastructure is already in place to handle heavier hydrocarbon compounds.

There is still some disagreement about how an increase in oil supply would affect the U.S economy, but ceteris paribus (everything being equal), Venezuelan production coming back online should lower oil prices. This would help American consumers with much needed economic relief and give Trump political benefits at home. It goes without saying that Washington is also ideologically interested in replacing a soft socialist authoritarian regime with a government that is more in line with U.S. liberal democratic values.

At his first press conference after the Maduro raid, President Trump said that the U.S would "take control" of Venezuela. He said this was necessary to control the country's oil industry and reserves. However, the logical question to arise from this concerns the definition of control. As has been made abundantly clear in recent U.S global conflicts, controlling a piece of territory takes much more than just a naval blockade or air superiority. It takes boots on the ground to seize and hold terrain. Then and only then, can an actor be said to control territory. If Trump plans on carrying the burden of controlling Venezuela, he by definition will need an armed force in the country, making a committed and protracted military campaign evermore likely.

The consequences of this action should not be minimized. Any occupying force would likely need to be in the number of hundreds of thousands, which would be a military commitment on a scale not seen since Vietnam. It is hard to believe that Trump has the political capital at home to carry out such a plan, especially since he ran for office as the "anti-war" candidate who wanted to focus on fixing problems on the home front rather than getting involved in wars abroad.

I contend that if Venezuela was an actual security threat to U.S regional hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, then the price would be worth paying. That is not the case, and that is not what this is about. Venezuela does not pose a strategic or security threat to the United States. The Trump administration has tried many times to invoke the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine to justify their actions in Venezuela, but the Monroe Doctrine was primarily a strategic and national security philosophy that helped maintain a favorable power balance for the United States in the Western Hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine was NOT a philosophy of economic imperialism and ideological supremacy that the United States could invoke carte blanche to justify military action on other states in the Western Hemisphere.

The Trump administration has relied on deliberate ambiguity, misusing realpolitik and geopolitical language to justify stealing resources from another sovereign state. It has tried to make a case for security by listing Venezuelan criminal groups "terrorist organizations" and using the term "narco-terrorism" ad nauseum. This does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Not only does Venezuela play a much smaller part in the drug trade than countries like Colombia, Mexico and a host of other Latin American nations, but most Venezuelan originated criminal cargo is cocaine - on its way to Europe, not the U.S.

It is hard to ignore how similar this sounds to the Bush administration deliberately using the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" story to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. An exaggerated and false security threat pretense, that was used to get the American citizenry onboard with military action. It seems more and more like U.S. foreign policy is a leopard that can't or won't change its spots.

China: the real winners?

There has been overwhelming commentary stating that the success of this recent U.S military operation in Venezuela has shown China the dominance and the extent that Washington is willing to go to protect their national interests. People who advocate this perspective say that the Trump administration has taken strong steps to protect U.S. national security by cutting off an energy exporter and tacit economic partner of Beijing. I find this line of argument unconvincing on two counts.

Firstly, Chinese oil imports are extremely diversified. Only 4–5% of China's total crude oil imports come from Venezuela. No serious scholar of international relations or foreign policy could credibly rationalize the potential repercussions and strategic hazards of the Maduro raid predicated on a negligible disruption to Chinese energy supply. This assertion disintegrates under even immediate examination of the facts and seems to serve primarily as a political talking point rather than a legitimate strategic justification.

Second, and much more worrying, the chances of escalation and the creation of a long-term military theater in Venezuela go directly against American grand strategic interests. Trump's limited military actions abroad, like strikes in Syria and Nigeria, were mostly in line with his public opposition to "forever wars." However, his vocal stance on Venezuela is very different. The President made it clear that the U.S. would "run" and "control" Venezuela. As has been previously mentioned, the capability to do this indicates a much larger, long-term military presence and a wide-ranging campaign.