Shannon K. O'Neil, Council On Foreign Relations: A U.S. Military Intervention in Venezuela Would Be a Disaster
The answer to Venezuela’s crisis is not military intervention. The United States and neighboring countries should instead focus on a widespread diplomatic, financial, and humanitarian response.
Calls for U.S. military intervention in Venezuela are growing, most recently from Senator Marco Rubio. Even Secretary General Luis Almagro of the Organization of American States has said he would not foreclose the military option. Yet as devastating as the regime of President Nicolas Maduro has been for Venezuela and its people, and as compelling the need for change, a military response – especially one led by the U.S. – is unrealistic and would be counterproductive. Instead, Venezuela’s American neighbors and their democratic partners outside the hemisphere will have to find another way.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The above author believes that a U.S. military intervention in Venezuela will be a disaster .... a position that I also agree with. A U.S. invasion will succeed, but the cost to rebuild Venezuela will be in the tens of billions, and there is no political will in the U.S. to do that. The above author also believes that the crisis in Venezuela can be minimized if Venezuela’s neighbors take the hard but necessary diplomatic, financial and humanitarian measures needed to achieve economic and political change and an improvement in the region’s collective fortunes. Unfortunately, IMHO this is also not going to work. The regime in Venezuela does not only proclaim that there is no crisis, but has proven itself more than once to be totally uninterested in compromise or enacting necessary economic or political policies that run contrary to its socialist dogma. Feeding it with financial and humanitarian aid is only going to prolong the misery .... the financial aid will go into into the pockets of regime supporters, and the humanitarian aid (which Venezuela has so far refused to accept) will only be used as a tool to suppress dissent. IMHO I see only three outcomes from this crisis. A continuation of the same, with a third of the country's population leaving within the next few years (which is what I think the Maduro regime is hoping for). An internal revolt that will overthrow this awful regime (which I doubt), or Venezuela's neighbors moving forcefully and covertly to support Venezuela's opposition groups to mount a military insurrection. The third option may start happening in 2019.
10 comments:
The Insurrection will leave the country in disaster, a quick soft invasion and team to put the right people back in power, restore Law & Order (Courts & Political Houses have been hand picked), Economy put back in order is only way. I believe if the South American Countries and the US team together on this it would work fine. Of course, that is probably not going to work because it makes too much sense - Ugh.
Yeah the US is all-intervened-invasion-out on the world stage. Done for a few generations. Thank you feckless, reckless Bush family for nothing.
Venezuela will turn into another hell-hole with Chinese/Russian/North Korean advisors really running things. Maduro and cronies count the cash. Just like Cuba has managed, he will continue to survive for decades in the future. Like Cuba, Venezuela will be a tempting location for military bases for those three nations.
I do not support a military option and particularly one that involves us. We have Bush and other US "elites" attempts to remind us, hopefully, to stay out of military experiments in regime change. The problem to be overcome in reaching solutions to situations such as Venezuela is one of finding an answer to the opportunism of other countries who will nullify a selective trade embargo, which I support. No one HAS to buy Venezuela's oil. They choose to do so. China above all springs to mind. No one HAS to sell them their military supplies.
The squeeze should also be applied when possible to those who do choose to prolong this situation. Cuba doesn't NEED our tourism dollars and shouldn't get them. Sanctions are certainly a growing problem for the Iranian religious dinosuars and can be one for Maduro and countries who actively support him. Turkey doesn't NEED to ply Maduro with lavish steak dinners.
The problem with the Bush/Iraq argument is that it was based on the WWII model used in Germany and Japan. That will not work and I am not suggesting that. All that's needed is to cut the head off the snake (small arms) and take control back and QUICKLY turn back over to the citizens then ensure good elections.
Michael (10:44AM),
The idea sounds good in theory but who is going to organize this and implement it? The US government has demonstrated monumental incompetence in the past in such areas. As such, I don't think the US either has the ability or the will to lead this. Even if POTUS had the inclination to try something of this magnitude, I don't see how he or his team have had time to purge the incompetent boobs from positions of power yet.
Furthermore how do we determine who the right people are, what constitutes law and order, how should the courts be structured, type of economy, etc? I seriously doubt the neighboring countries would agree with us on much of this. Besides we aren't exactly trusted or liked in that region. Can we trsut them to have our backs in such a situation? I would say no.
Anon (10:52AM),
Well said. There's not much I can add except perhaps to suggest it might be a good idea to explore how we might be able to find some type of accommodation with Russia and China. This would certainly seem to be a better option than continuing with fruitless foreign interventions that not only don't advance our interests but actually undermine them.
Roger (11:18AM)
No one has to do certain things but they will. Very respectfully the problem with sanctions is I don't think they are sustainable. while they may work against small weak countries who don't have allies, I don't think they are going to work long term against powerful countries with powerful allies. They actually serve to undercut the US dollar as world reserve currency and make a hard landing more likely when the inevitable end does occur as opposed tot he soft landing/orderly transition we should be aiming for. Perhaps I am overly pessimistic. Perhaps if arrangements were made regarding Eastern Europe and the South China Sea with regards to Russia and China we might be able to reach some kind of accommodation and this may persuade people to not do things they are now currently going to do.
Michael (12:24PM)
Iraq was based upon a WWII model without nearly enough troops to do the job nor was the commitment from the US government there either. To get such commitments would have required a major commitment from the American people that we were not and are still not prepared to make. Throw in the fact that the intelligence or lack thereof used to justify the invasion in the first place was at best in error and perhaps even fabricated. In order to get such a sacrifice, there better be a VERY GOOD REASON as to why Americans need to risk their lives, their economic futures, and our very existence as a country before expecting them to give this to our government.
Say we "cut off the head" in all likelihood a new one takes its place. Even solving this problem which citizens do you turn the country over to? How do you ensure good elections? Just what are good elections? Regardless it would be a huge commitment. We simply don't have the resources to make it and even if we did the will isn't there.
Additionally, Russia and China have large investments there and are allied with the current government. Any approach that involves government change is bound to meet resistance from them. Messing with major world powers of this magnitude is not something to trifle with. How would we counter them. Again, this would be a major commitment. Very respectfully, "All that's needed...." makes it sound like this is an easy matter without significant downside risks to America and the American people. It isn't!!
As the editor reported sometime ago, Venezuelan military officers approached the US about a coup. Someone in the US government nixed our involvement at this. At the time, I thought, if this is true, this was a very wise person in our government. Now I am even more convinced that such a move, if this actually happened, was a wise one.
Agreed Poster. My thoughts were simply ruminations that I felt at the time of writing had little chance in the real world. The UN, formed in the debris of and hope that followed WWII, has proven this to a great degree.
The world will never rise above itself as there is no single point on which we will ever all agree despite the rhetoric that often sounds so similar. The proof is in the pudding.
Well...it's time to go watch my bees and sit in my garden. Beets are up and lettuce planted.
Ahhhhh, sanity.
I know I know, your all right but I am an engineer so I see things in a different manner. Politicians always F things up (and yes engineers do on occasion as well :))
Remember; Plan for the Worst and Hope for the Best.
"Plan for the worst and hope for the best." I'm an accountant so I think I see things similar to how you do in some respects. In any event, I like your plan. I try to go by this as well.
Part of the problem with the US leadership class is they tend to overestimate our abilities while underestimating those of adversaries and potential adversaries. There is huge potential for such approaches to end badly with very little corresponding possibility of such approaches ending well.
With that said the "plan" for Iraq assuming there really was one could have been expressed as: "plan for the best possible case scenario, expect the best possible case scenario, and don't plan for anything else as there are no other possibilities." As for why government personnel tend to screw up in this manner, I think it at least partly boils down to the lack of a need to make a profit, they can't get fired, and they don't actually suffer loss for their sloppy decision making.
Anon 1052
Wow. Let's summarize
- Obligatory bitch at the U.S. Certainly no other country in the world intervene's in other countries' affairs.
This is like the Snowden affair. Everyone mad at the NSA. Then we found out that Germany & Britain did it too. Of course Iran, North Korea, China and Russia do it.
Venezuela was caught doing it to Columbia.
If a country is not doing it, it does not have a budget to be able to do it.
Like spying so goes intervening in other country's affairs
- Obligatory bitch out of Bush
- 3rd thing you did was say how bad the commie regimes are, but that they would survive.
- 4th thing was what you did not do. Suggest a solution or back a side
So what you did jack was a primal scream. Was that scream Rosanne style?
The women in the picture would make great wives.
If they married an American they would work hard at a job (s) and raise a family in earnest.
Having seen communism up close and personal they would spout none of the PC SJW bullshit that Democrats do.
Post a Comment