The Trump administration's military intervention in Venezuela has eerie echoes of the disastrous US invasion of Iraq two decades ago. President Donald Trump's boastful declaration that he would "run" Venezuela after ousting its president Nicolas Maduro is a stark reminder of the hubris and shortsightedness that characterized George W Bush's administration.
When Saddam Hussein was captured in Iraq in 2003, it seemed like a major turning point in the conflict. But as journalist Paul Bremer so aptly put it at a press conference on December 14, 2003, "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!" The euphoria was short-lived, however, as the reality of regime change set in. The insurgency that had been growing under Saddam's rule continued to simmer, and US officials' confidence in their ability to bring about a quick victory turned out to be wishful thinking.
Now, Trump is repeating this same pattern in Venezuela. His administration has done little or no planning for the "day after" scenarios once Maduro was removed from power, despite his claims that the US would "run" the country. This lack of foresight is echoed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio's attempt to backtrack on this assertion just days later.
The Trump administration is also underestimating polarization and the potential for political violence within Venezuelan society. The Chavista regime has deployed armed militias to patrol streets, making it difficult to gauge public opinion or predict how the population will react to US intervention.
Furthermore, the idea that oil revenues can pay for a US occupation of Venezuela is a myth that has been disproven in Iraq. After years of international sanctions and mismanagement under the Baathist regime, Iraq's oil infrastructure was in disrepair, requiring billions of dollars in investment to repair. The US spent far more than projected on the invasion and occupation, with estimates suggesting nearly $2.9 trillion was spent on the conflict.
Trump's assertion that the US will "get reimbursed" for its spending is laughable, given Venezuela's crumbling oil infrastructure and the need for tens of billions of dollars in investment to restore production. Research firms estimate that the Venezuelan government and oil companies would need over $180 billion to restore output to pre-1990s levels.
Ultimately, Trump's military intervention in Venezuela risks unleashing a new series of "we got him" moments – hollow victories that can't overcome the chaos and bloodshed of failed regime change. The US president must be cautious not to repeat the mistakes of his predecessors and instead develop a thoughtful strategy for addressing Venezuela's crisis.
When Saddam Hussein was captured in Iraq in 2003, it seemed like a major turning point in the conflict. But as journalist Paul Bremer so aptly put it at a press conference on December 14, 2003, "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!" The euphoria was short-lived, however, as the reality of regime change set in. The insurgency that had been growing under Saddam's rule continued to simmer, and US officials' confidence in their ability to bring about a quick victory turned out to be wishful thinking.
Now, Trump is repeating this same pattern in Venezuela. His administration has done little or no planning for the "day after" scenarios once Maduro was removed from power, despite his claims that the US would "run" the country. This lack of foresight is echoed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio's attempt to backtrack on this assertion just days later.
The Trump administration is also underestimating polarization and the potential for political violence within Venezuelan society. The Chavista regime has deployed armed militias to patrol streets, making it difficult to gauge public opinion or predict how the population will react to US intervention.
Furthermore, the idea that oil revenues can pay for a US occupation of Venezuela is a myth that has been disproven in Iraq. After years of international sanctions and mismanagement under the Baathist regime, Iraq's oil infrastructure was in disrepair, requiring billions of dollars in investment to repair. The US spent far more than projected on the invasion and occupation, with estimates suggesting nearly $2.9 trillion was spent on the conflict.
Trump's assertion that the US will "get reimbursed" for its spending is laughable, given Venezuela's crumbling oil infrastructure and the need for tens of billions of dollars in investment to restore production. Research firms estimate that the Venezuelan government and oil companies would need over $180 billion to restore output to pre-1990s levels.
Ultimately, Trump's military intervention in Venezuela risks unleashing a new series of "we got him" moments – hollow victories that can't overcome the chaos and bloodshed of failed regime change. The US president must be cautious not to repeat the mistakes of his predecessors and instead develop a thoughtful strategy for addressing Venezuela's crisis.
. Reminds me of the whole Iraq debacle, where the US thought they could just swoop in and fix everything. Newsflash: regime change ain't as easy as it looks 
. Have you seen what's been going on with the Chavista militias? It's like a powder keg waiting to blow. And don't even get me started on the oil revenue myth 
. We should be focusing on supporting Venezuela, not taking over 
. What's next? 
i'm seriously worried about this situation... we should be focusing on supporting democratic movements and negotiations, not sending in troops again. and what about the logistics of running a country with no experience? it's just too much for one guy to handle. also, have you seen the state of venezuela's oil infrastructure? it's like they haven't even tried to fix it 
let's hope trump doesn't get himself into another hot mess
. Like, what's the plan here? Do we just waltz in and expect everything to fall into place? That's crazy talk! 
. The infrastructure is a mess, and it's not like Venezuela's just gonna magically produce oil again after some US intervention 
.
It's like they're winging it and hoping for the best. Not exactly the most reassuring vibe 
. We need to be thinking about the potential risks of all this, not just talking about how great we're gonna be saviors 
.
. Can't we just try to help Venezuela find its own way instead? 
. The fact that Trump is repeating the same pattern and not even thinking about the aftermath is alarming 
. What's next? Sending in troops without a clear exit strategy or plan for reconstruction? It just feels like another failed US invasion waiting to happen 
.
.
And yeah, the idea of underestimating polarization and political violence in Venezuela makes total sense, it's not like the US has a proven track record of handling complex social issues with subtlety 
.
and let's be real, oil revenues ain't gonna cut it for a US occupation 
another intervention 
. we got the guy, but what after? 
i mean trump is doing this without even thinking about what comes after he gets rid of maduro, which is like, have you seen how things went in iraq? the whole idea of 'we got him' and then it all just falls apart seems so doomed to repeat itself. plus venezuela's situation is way more complicated than iraq ever was - they've had all this time to sort out their issues with chavismo and militias and stuff, but trump thinks he can just waltz in and fix everything?