Trump Should Use Military Might to Force Maduro from Power

In a wide range 60 minutes In an interview with Norah O’Donnell that aired on November 2, US President Donald Trump revealed that the goal of his Venezuela policy is to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power. Are Maduro’s days as president numbered? O’Donnell asked, and Trump replied: “I would say so, yes. I think so, yes.”

This is an ambitious and inspiring goal. If Trump can remove Maduro from power and establish a lasting pro-American democracy in Latin America, this will be a tremendous US foreign policy success.

In a wide range 60 minutes In an interview with Norah O’Donnell that aired on November 2, US President Donald Trump revealed that the goal of his Venezuela policy is to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power. Are Maduro’s days as president numbered? O’Donnell asked, and Trump replied: “I would say so, yes. I think so, yes.”

This is an ambitious and inspiring goal. If Trump can remove Maduro from power and establish a lasting pro-American democracy in Latin America, this will be a tremendous US foreign policy success.

This would not be the first time a Republican US president has used military force to oust an anti-American dictator in the region. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of the Grenada base in 1983 over concerns that the government was building an airfield to host Soviet aircraft. The invasion succeeded, and the island has been a pro-American democracy ever since. Freedom House rated it 89 out of 100 and “free” on its scale of democracy.

Likewise, US President George H. W. Bush used military force to overthrow Panamanian dictator and drug lord Manuel Noriega in 1989. That, too, was a strategic success. The operation went according to plan, Noriega was quickly transferred to a Florida prison, and a new government was installed in Panama. Panama received a score of 83 out of 100 and a “Free” rating from Freedom House.

Maduro’s Venezuela presents a familiar set of problems for the United States. His government’s disastrous economic policies have devastated the country and led to a mass outflow of nearly 8 million refugees from the country, contributing to the problem of irregular migration in the region and the United States.

In order to keep the economy afloat, and to bring joy to his bed and the bed of his supporters, Maduro and his regime engage in drug trafficking, which contributes to the spread of the drug epidemic in the region and the United States.

In addition, Venezuela is the axis of the Western camp of aggressors. Maduro works closely with Russia, China, and Iran, undermining US security by giving US enemies in Eurasia a foothold in its immediate neighborhood. China supports Maduro financially and in return obtains a terrestrial space station that China uses to spy on Americans. Russia invests in Venezuela’s energy sector, provides military support, and exports surveillance technology to help Maduro suppress political opponents.

The overthrow of Maduro could therefore eliminate these threats and significantly improve US security in the region. This will be a major down payment for the National Defense Strategy that is expected to prioritize security in the Western Hemisphere.

This is also a policy that could unite different factions within the Trump movement. Reaganite Republicans would agree to remove an anti-American dictator. MAGA Republicans will applaud efforts to address border security and drug trafficking problems affecting ordinary Americans, as long as Trump does not go further.

This leads to the big unanswered question about the purpose of the massive military buildup in the Caribbean. At the time of writing, the United States is amassing an impressive show of force in the region, including the aircraft carrier Gerald Ford, the largest floating fortress in the US Navy, which is expected to arrive next week.

How can Trump use force to oust Maduro? There are three real possibilities, and one possibility.

The first is to use military threats and coercive diplomacy to force Maduro to voluntarily deport — for fear of his life. On Sunday shows last week, U.S. Senators Rick Scott and Lindsey Graham posted similar talking points. They said things will get worse for Maduro before they get better, and it would be smart for him to look for a new home in China or Russia. What lends credibility to this theory, when O’Donnell asked Trump: “Are we going to go to war against Venezuela?” “I doubt it. I don’t think so,” Trump said.

If coercive diplomacy that lacks force does not work, there is a second option. Trump could increase the pace of military operations against Venezuelan drug boats and expand the specific target to include mainland strikes or special operations raids against Venezuelan oil fields, bases, and military forces. This would strangle the main sources of income for Maduro and his cronies, make them fear that they can no longer be protected, and increase pressure on him to look for a way out.

The third option is Soleimani’s option. Washington could launch a direct strike against Maduro and other regime targets. The United States has a long-standing policy against assassinating world leaders, but Trump is not afraid to flout established norms. Maduro is afraid and is said to be moving around and sleeping in different houses, but the US’s ability to track him is not counted. Israel knew where top Iranian nuclear scientists slept, and Jerusalem’s technical assembly capabilities were certainly superior to the world’s greatest superpower.

But the film that won’t be showing in these cinemas anytime soon is “Red Herring”: Military Invasion, Occupation, and Nation Building. Trump loves short, sharp, and decisive uses of force, as we saw against Soleimani and the Iranian nuclear program. He has always been skeptical of long, protracted military campaigns, with no clear end in sight, as happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine.

It is not possible for the Trump administration to launch a full-scale invasion of Venezuela any time soon.

Some are puzzled by how Trump, a self-proclaimed peacemaker seeking a Nobel Prize, is preparing to take military action against Venezuela, but they misunderstand the principle of “peace through strength.” It is peace through strength, not peace through surrender. This includes the use of military force to achieve clear national security objectives.

However, forcing Maduro from power will only be half the battle. What strategy is needed to ensure that power shifts to the democratic opposition and not to Maduro regime insiders?

Conditions are ripe for relocation. The country has already voted in favor of regime change, with an estimated 67% of the population supporting the opposition candidate in last year’s rigged presidential election.

But many regime elites benefit from Maduro’s corrupt government, and the military is co-opted. They are either loyal, fearful, or both, and are watched by the Cuban Imperial Guard.

After Maduro leaves power, this means that the Trump administration will still need to use other tools of power, including diplomacy and economic influence. They can now send a message that Maduro is gone and that his successors will face the same fate unless they are prepared to hold free and fair elections and begin the transition to a new democratic government.

They must also send a message that democratization will lead to significant U.S. investments, including but not limited to, in Venezuela’s energy sector, and a prosperous future.

Some may worry that a regime change in Venezuela could lead to civil unrest, but this is unlikely. It requires a civil war between two parties, and only the army is armed. Perhaps the conflict could lead to the military turning against itself, with some supporting the opposition and others supporting the Maduro regime? This is possible, but Venezuela is a cohesive society free of sectarian divisions, and has not witnessed a civil war in 160 years.

There is a greater risk of an armed crackdown; Military and security forces may be willing to kill innocent civilians to keep the Maduro regime in power. To address this problem, the Trump administration could engage in a deterrence subsystem and send the message that there will be severe consequences for any individuals who engage in such violence against their own people.

Some might also object that Maduro’s ouster could lead to chaos or the formation of a new government that would exacerbate the refugee or drug problem, but this is unlikely. A quarter of the country’s population has already fled, and Maduro is using the full power of the state to traffic drugs. It is hard to imagine how things could get worse.

It is an ambiguous moment, but it may be the most promising moment for the Venezuelan people and regional security since Hugo Chavez’s rise to power in 1999.

Lack of ambition has never been Trump’s weakness. If he can follow in the footsteps of Reagan and Bush and establish another lasting pro-American democracy in Latin America, his foreign policy victory will be monumental and worthy of praise from future historians.