Venezuela under Chavismo (1999–) has been a pebble in the United States’ shoe that has largely been left alone. Until recently, there has not been the motivation, beyond narrowly targeted sanctions, to address the metastasizing socialist cancer.
Perhaps the rise of the Tren de Aragua crime network catalyzed a change of heart north of the border. Videos of Venezuelan thugs brandishing firearms and extorting residents in Colorado tried the US electorate’s patience. Their security is at stake.
The largely inconsequential, spotty sanctions against some Venezuelans began in 2015, after the oil production decline and economic crisis. The timing, however, did not stop Chavistas from screaming ¡imperialismo! As with Cuba, the evil empire is the scapegoat to blame for all manner of ills.
We can draw three conclusions from imperialism accusations:
(1) Those doing the name-calling do not care about foreign intervention in Venezuela. If they did, they would oppose the destructive presence of Colombian, Chinese, Cuban, Iranian, and Russian agents. These foreign entities—be they state, terrorist, or cartel actors—have filled the power vacuum left by disinterest from the United States and neighboring countries.
(2) Whatever the United States does, no matter how small or large, she will be demonized as an evil imperialist. This goes back a long way. Venezuelan author Carlos Rangel mocked autocrats in the 1970s for blaming everything on the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The Cuban dictatorship has a billboard near Havana chastising the so-called blockade as “the largest genocide in history.” Nobody believes them.
(3) Efforts to restore liberal democracy in Venezuela, to oust the Soles Cartel and its allies, should not be restrained by fears of the imperialism pejorative. Cowering before such rhetoric is like cowering before racism accusations. These are unfalsifiable and should be water off a duck’s back. Acceding to them means fighting with one arm tied behind one’s back.
That is tragically what happened during the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco. President John F. Kennedy did not want to reveal that the attempted overthrow was, although implemented by Cuban exiles, funded and orchestrated by the United States. Kennedy withheld air support and left the honorable Cubans to be captured by Fidel Castro’s regime.
The US electorate is reluctant to get into discretionary wars, given legitimate fiscal concerns and noninterventionist proclivities. However, the US government can no longer ignore the consequences of Venezuela’s collapse, especially the mass exodus and the exportation of organized crime.
The Center for Security Policy (CSP)—a leading foreign-policy think tank in Washington, DC—in 2018 released a decision brief backing regime change:
The United States should help Venezuelans take their country back by themselves.… the United States should provide arms, equipment, training, intelligence, and logistical support to worthy Venezuelans to organize their own insurgent force and fight for their country.
CSP notes that “Venezuela is not a sovereign country.” Fast forward seven years, and regime change could be a restoration, rather than a violation, of sovereignty. Venezuelans will not get rid of the Chavistas without overt US leadership; let us quit dilly-dallying and pretending otherwise. Further delays spell more suffering for Venezuelans and a more difficult task for the United States.
Given sufficient pressure, cartel boss Nicolás Maduro and his circle, notably Interior Minister Disodado Cabello, will likely accept asylum without a ground invasion. If not, a jail cell in El Salvador would be merciful.
Although not easy or predictable, kinetic warfare must be on the table; otherwise, the regime will not back down. Any boots-on-the-ground presence needs a careful strategy, targeting the SEBIN secret police and military counterintelligence, and consideration for the democratic transition. Ideally, this will include economic tactics, such as drug liberalization, that deprive the regime of funds.
As Arturo Fields noted in the Hill, “Regime change in Venezuela would deal a devastating blow to the agendas of China, Russia, and Iran in the Western Hemisphere. The United States would make it clear that the use of force is an option when it comes to guaranteeing a safe and prosperous hemisphere.” Far from something to be ashamed of, US leadership in the Americas—a Monroe Doctrine 2.0—is better than the alternative and can deliver tremendous benefits.
