Should the U.S. military intervene in Venezuela?
The 360 is a feature designed to show you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories.
Speed read
What's happening: Long-running tension over Venezuela’s political leadership boiled over last week resulting in violent clashes. Opposition leader Juan Guaidó and groups loyal to him have attempted to stir revolt since President Nicolás Maduro was sworn in for a second term in January. Maduro remains in power after an uprising intended to oust him fell apart when key military leaders — who were expected to turn on the embattled leader — instead remained loyal.
Under Maduro, who became president after Hugo Chávez died in 2013, the Venezuelan economy has crumbled. In recent years, the country has suffered through widespread hunger, the collapse of its public health system and violent protests that have led to dozens of deaths.
In January, Guaidó declared himself the nation’s interim president, in a direct challenge to Maduro. The U.S. joined several other prominent nations in recognizing Guaidó as Venezuela's true president. Maduro, however, has maintained the support of the country's military leaders, allowing him to remain in power.
Why there's debate: The U.S. has taken aggressive steps to compel Maduro to step down, including issuing sanctions and political pressure. But these nonmilitary options have so far come up short. And some argue the Trump administration's anti-Maduro maneuvers have allowed the Venezuelan leader to use the United States as a boogeyman to blame for the country's problems.
The administration has remained steadfast in its position that the only acceptable way forward involves Maduro’s removal, prompting the question of how far the U.S. is willing to go to make that happen. The president said “all options are on the table.”
The notion of military intervention in Venezuela has sparked concern among those who worry it might lead to an outright civil war or leave the country in a worse position. Some foreign policy experts warn that military victory will not be as easy and could lead to a prolonged postwar recovery effort that would last long after Maduro was gone.
The situation is complicated by the influence of Russia, which potentially raises the stakes of military conflict beyond Venezuela's borders. There are also legitimate questions about whether the use of military force would be illegal without prior approval from Congress.
What's next: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said military intervention is "possible" and national security adviser John Bolton is reportedly pushing for intervention. So far, no one in the administration has openly called for military action. Guaidó said he welcomes U.S. military support, but only as a complement to Venezuelan forces that have turned against Maduro.
Perspectives
U.S. involvement may lead to a civil war.
"Venezuela is a polarized country and overthrowing the government — even if Washington were not involved in the fight — would only increase this polarization and the chances of greater violence or even civil war." — Mark Weisbrot, The Intercept
America's history of intervention in the region makes other nations skeptical.
"Washington lacks credibility as a disinterested actor dedicated to the good of the Venezuelan people. Alas, Americans well-earned their reputation for 'Yankee imperialism' through more than a century of military intervention in Latin America." — Doug Bandow, Cato Institute
"The concept of regime change, so sullied by the Iraq War and the U.S. overthrow of unfriendly Latin American governments during the Cold War, is suddenly back." — Uri Friedman and Kathy Gilsinan, The Atlantic
The focus should be on helping Venezuelans, even if it means Maduro stays.
"With no security concerns and no direct interests at stake, the best thing the United States can do for the people of Venezuela — and for Americans — is to forget about regime change, help relieve the humanitarian crisis, encourage all parties to resolve their disputes according to their own laws and constitution, and engage in regional diplomacy with other like-minded countries." — Daniel Davis, Fox News
The current strategy is working and will lead Maduro to step down.
"Far more often than not, when you're trying to topple a dictatorship … the job is to keep creating and exploiting cracks in the wall. The job is not to bring the whole wall down in one fell, heroic swoop — because every time that fails, as it usually does, it sets you back." — Tim Padgett, NPR
Military action in Venezuela would be illegal.
"In addition to being a prolonged, costly undertaking, intervention in Venezuela would be illegal as well as unwise. Congress won’t authorize an air war or an invasion, and the president has no authority to initiate a war against another country on his own." — Daniel Larison, American Conservative
The U.S. could end up mired in an extended postwar recovery effort.
"There’s no such thing as risk-free military action. But in this case, the social, economic, and security costs of intervening far outweigh the benefits. Whether the United States launched limited air strikes or a full ground invasion, it would almost certainly get sucked into a long, difficult campaign to stabilize Venezuela after the initial fighting was over." — Frank O. Mora, Foreign Affairs
"Many in the U.S. military fear it would be easy to attack Venezuela, but it wouldn’t be easy to get out. Many fear it would lead to another Syria or Afghanistan-like quagmire." — Andres Oppenheimer, Miami Herald
Venezuela must be allowed to make its own change.
"Only one course of action will forestall this scenario: The Venezuelan military must render itself to its own people, not to a foreign power." — Douglas A. Johnson and Kathryn Sikkink, The Hill
Venezuelans don't want U.S. intervention.
"Many [opposition leaders] believe U.S. troops could ignite internal conflicts within the military, irregular forces linked to Maduro and criminal cartels. Intervention would also undermine Guaidó’s claim to be a grassroots Venezuelan leader by seeming to confirm that he’s exactly what Maduro has claimed: a puppet of the United States." — Anthony Faiola and Mariana Zuñiga, Washington Post
