This take of Richard’s is naive in the extreme. We can all agree that Maduro’s exit is, in and of itself, a Good Thing. However, carrying it out unilaterally, without reference to the US’s own constitutional requirements such as Congressional approval, speaks to the US regime acquiring the status of a rogue state. I would be hugely surprised if any thought has been given to what comes after - the regime appears to be in place still and apparently there are still some 30,000 Cubans in the country. Cuba itself relies on Venezuelan oil, so we can look forward to a Cuba refugee crisis as that runs out. So well done Trump, who gets a few good headlines from naive conservative pundits and the rest of us enjoy the years of chaos to come.
I have to agree. And I would put much more emphasis on how Hanania, by focusing entirely on a narrow slice of the ‘expedience’ pie, is massively glossing over the fact that he is celebrating the escalating consolidation of the United States as a rogue regime and with the apparently full complicity now of our military and the ‘Accelerationist’ tech bro billionaire consigliari who, besides himself, are all that Trump cares about fighting for and with. This is not about Justice for bad guys. It’s about consolidating the criminal syndicate of the ‘Don’ of the Americas.
I think you're mistaken there. What Congressional approval is required by the Constitution? President Trump did not try to declare war, which only Congress can do and is probably now an obsolete anachronistic formality anyway. The President has a free hand in foreign policy, just as kings in the 18th century did. (The powers of the President were considered to be king-like. It was only the method of installation and removal that was different in the Republic. As the powers of kings declined after 1787 as Parliament became supreme, the powers of the U.S. President have remained as in 1787.) Any treaties concluded by the President's executive team must be ratified by the Senate before they become domestic law, but the Congress does not itself participate in the treaty negotiation process. So President Trump has every authority to do the Maduro thing on his own say-so.
And even if Congress had approved the arrest of President Maduro, how would this make the United States any less of a rogue state than President Trump doing it through his own lawful executive authority? Critics of the U.S. would still call you a rogue state no matter who approved it. They would say it required UN Security Council authority, or the blessing of the Pope, or some Higher Authority, not just your own Congressional authority.
As a practical matter, the effort to get Congressional approval with a formal public vote would have compromised operational secrecy and sacrificed surprise.
I think you've answered your own question of why the president never seeks the approval of Congress for rogue actions. BECAUSE they know it would screw with our international status, such as the Senate ratifying treaties, which by your thinking is just another obsolete legacy of the Old Republic.
Impeachment is a political act, not a legal proceeding. The Congress can impeach the president for any reason it chooses to call a high crime/misdemeanor. But that is the Congress's only remedy. The President is above the ordinary criminal law as long as he holds office because the Justice Dept. won't indict a sitting President. He is bound only by the Constitution and the only remedy when he violates the Constitution is impeachment. But Congress has to care enough to want to. As you say, they don't. (And the only penalty the Senate can apply on conviction is removal from office.)
Isn't this pretty similar to what the US did with Noriega in 1989? And has it been considered a rogue state ever since? Or was it considered unconstitutional then?
The timeline seems pretty much the same: an unrecognized head of state has an indictment obtained prior to a limited operation ( https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1422326/dl ), the head of state is removed and brought to the US to face charges in the US court system.
Surface similarities, but quite different situations, motivations and scale. Noriega was out scumbag, until he wasn't. Read the Wikipedia for the Noriega operation. And Panama has not been a "rogue state" since then. Quite stable politically and economically, democratic - not quite Costa Rica or Chile but better than many in Latin America.
This is my intial thought on it. I'm skeptical that Maduro was thr sole person holding his regime together or the sole problem with it. Didn't he inherit control from Hugo Chavez, who initially caused all the problems in Venezuela? Do we have some reason to think that Delcy Rodríguez won't just continue running Venezuela into the ground? Regime change may be warranted but removing the president likely isnt regime change, its likely just theatrics.
Diosdado Cabello is the real power in Venezuela now. He has the most influence over the military and other parts of the regime, not Rodríguez. Not capturing him with Maduro was a bad move, I think, unless the CIA wants the regime to start infighting for control.
I wasn't enthusiastic about this operation, and I'm not enthusiastic about further operations either. Can we wait a bit to see if Cabello does a better job managing the economy?
Yes, successful nation building in a country has a strong correlation with ease of arrest its dictator. It is brilliance like yours that I came to Substack for. Please elaborate, I look forward to learning about the methods of easy nation building, and especially with respect to Venezuela, which, of course you are an expert on, right?
Right. Just like, "This was about as clean of an overthrow as one can imagine." Do we know that, 12 hours in?
" ... a great act of heroism?" In what world? What even motivated this? Beyond Wag the Dog, opportunities for billionaires, and the need to further Putin's "spheres of influence" world view?
These laws have long been enforced against foreign nationals, occasionally with military aid, like with Noriega. They could always restrict the laws to not apply to De Facto Rulers, but they haven’t so far.
By all means, this is definitely a Gray Area, but if Congress truly thinks it’s an illegal act, they can always impeach Trump or pass a Private Bill to free Maduro. But they almost certainly won’t.
To clarify, this was certainly a violation of International Law. This violates the UN Charter and Customary International Law very clearly. Extradition Treaties are a way to do this legally under International Law, and Trump completely flaunted any international law authority.
The Gray area is in US Constitutional Law. Maduro is welcome to appeal his arrest under US Constitutional Law, and that’s where the Gray area is. I expect the Supreme Court to decide with the US, if they even bother to grant cert.
American geopolitical interests are important. This was a good thing. Nobody has been harmed by doing this. We aren't setting a precedent, since coups against latam are a common American tradition.
I agree, American geopolitical interests are important. I look forward to hearing a thousand people tell me this who were telling me 'Americans have no interest in what happens in foreign countries' a few days ago. But anyway: may I ask what geopolitical interests were threatened by the power of the Maduro regime? How is this different from Iraq/Afghanistan?
Securing their oil in the hands of a puppet regime will likely boost the economy.
OPEC prides itself on annoying the US and its allies, like Everything Russia does, to the Saudis trying to strangle American oil by mass dumping supply to kill American oil profits. They are weakened now that we are both a massive oil exporter (Biden was actually very good in the oil wars against OPEC. My one favorable opinion on him in the FOPO sphere.) and Venezuela can be turned to our interests in fucking their cartel, rather than us.
Maduro was so bad that many latam people will think more favorably of America with his ouster.
Less refugees in America. Many leeches on the American welfare team will feel patriotic fervor to go home and rebuild their broken nation.
Wrong. Congress declares war, but the Constitution lets the Commander‑in‑Chief initiate limited operations. Only formal wars need a declaration. Hence presidents have used military force overseas without Congress voting first for decades. Plus the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires reporting to Congress for hostilities exceeding 60–90 days, but does not prohibit the President from acting unilaterally in limited operations.
Correct, and to put things into perspective: the Biden administration placed a $25M bounty on Maduro in January of 2025 without triggering a state of war, based on this same reasoning. Note how the Western powers have placed no bounties on Putin, as he ultimately is recognized as Russia's legitimate head of state and any such bounty would be targeting him in this role - which *is* generally considered an act of war.
And who chose not to recognise Maduro as the head of state? I presume the US State Department or the President. So you're just describing an act of war with extra steps.
Assume that George W Bush stole the 2000 election... would it have been legitimate for Venezuela and Cuba to launch limited operations to kidnap Bush? And if not, why not?
You are confusing an "act of war" with a "declaration of war". They are very different things. You need to look this up. It is fundamental to understanding a muscular foreign policy.
Countries don't need to declare war to conduct war. Indeed, the Wikipedia discussion considers declarations of war to be anachronisms of a pre-1945 era.
Read the war powers act. It states that the president can unilaterally use military force without congressional authorization ONLY in a national emergency in self defense. That absolutely didn’t happen here
Article 2, Section 2. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." The Constitution separates declaring war (Congress) from conducting military operations (the President). It does not say "the President may only move troops after Congress votes first."
1541(c) is explicitly a policy statement meaning that it's not enforceable. Congress labeled it congressional "purpose and policy." But even so, the existence of communism is a national emergency (prong 3). In a perfect world, we'd destroy every single communist regime, but since our time and resources are limited, we have to pick and choose our battles. And this was a battle we won.
If they're just removing Maduro and leaving everyone else in place, why should we expect Venezuela to change? And if we're installing our own puppets, it won't be a random draw from South American governments, it'll be the specific kind of government Trump likes -- that is, one that's easy for him and his cronies to loot from.
I'd have liked this if Obama's team did it, or even Bush's (they made a million mistakes but at least their goal was a free Iraq). I don't know if Trump's people can arrange a free Venezuela, but even if they can, will they really want to?
I like how you're not even bright enough to try to make up an excuse about how you forgot about Congress. Brilliant stuff from the new right intellectuals.
The President has a free hand in foreign policy and commanding the military. Congress has no role there except voting the necessary appropriation of tax money, ratifying treaties, and declaring war. But warlike activity can be conducted under purely executive presidential authority without a formal declaration of war, and indeed has in most warring countries including the U.S. since 1945.
Congress is irrelevant to this operation in Venezuela. If it thinks President Trump's actions amounted to a high crime and misdemeanor it can impeach him.
If you think bombing a sovereign nation's capital city and sequestering its head of state is not an act of war, regardless of your opinions regarding that nation and its leader, my impression is that you are not very bright either, but you are at least engaging with specific issues that are in question rather than the author of this blog who seems to assume them away. As you have probably noticed by now, there are in fact multiple members of Congress calling for impeachment, so it is at least hardly a foregone conclusion. Kudos on achieving this bare minimum of inquiry-- I wish you the best of luck on your intellectual journey.
This sets a precedent. It's nice to say "that's alright if they're socialist dictators", but there's no reason to believe these interventions would strictly be reserved for that case. Trump's rhetoric towards Canada and Denmark wasn't much weaker than what he used with Maduro. He's been accusing Canada of being a major source of drug trafficking into the U.S., like Venezuela. Incidentally Trump's already gesturing at Mexico - https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-hints-at-next-target-after-shocking-invasion/
He's talked about how the US has to "get" Greenland, and that Canada should be the 51st state. What's stopping him from just seizing Greenland, at this point? What's stopping him from invading Canada?
Realpolitik constrains him, I'd imagine. Same as why in a vacuum this act might be on the net a positive for the United States due to Venezuela's inability to meaningfully retaliate and the US populace's relative indifference to Venezuela's welfare.
That being said, I think this comment motions towards a more important point; unilateral acts such as these continue to alienate our allies in a world where we increasingly need them.
The general vibe that "international law doesn't matter" is very very off base.
The 1930s were bad because international law was broken.
The 1990s were good because international law was robust.
Everything that happens in world affairs is more important because of how it affects the evolution of international law than in itself. International law is the force multiplier. It works full time when the news isn't paying attention.
Usually in intentional affairs, no news is good news, and no news happens because of international law.
Nope. It powerfully influences the conduct of states and is absolutely indispensable to the maintenance of peace. That's easy to prove from game theory and from from history.
Neither the Rwandan genocide, the breakup of Yugoslavia, or the Congo wars seem particularly great.
Inasmuch as the 1990s were definitely better than the 1930s, I put this up to the lack of a giant global depression and numerous expansionistic great powers jockeying for position. "America is the last game in town, is too scary to fight, and happens to be liberal" is not the same thing as "international law was robust." This was a byproduct of us winning the Cold War, not how we won it.
Re: "America is the last game in town, too scary to fight, happens to be liberal" ≠ "International law was robust"
Well put! Pithy! But actually, the combination of American military preeminence with a liberal polity that eschewed conquest actually did invest international law with an important kind of robustness, and the benefits were massive, even if, as you say, the lack of a built-in responsibility to protect as part of international law was a critical weakness.
International law was fairly robust in the 1990s, not because the UN-based World order was operationally competent in itself-- although it was an important and valuable source of legitimacy-- but essentially, because the US volunteered to be the global policeman, more or less in the interests of international law. That was a smart play on our part, and to some extent self-interested, but only because our liberal principles caused us to define the national interest in terms of free trade and world Peace, rather than land grabbing or neo-imperialism.
We've sunk a long ways since then, and made the world a lot more dangerous. We can't just rewind the tape because our relative power is less than it was. But the world in 2015 was a lot better than the world in 2026, and a big part of the reason for that is the stupid and wicked choices that American voters have made. We could put together a pretty decent world order, with the help of liberal allies, if we decided to stop being evil.
There is no such thing as "international law". There are only treaties between nations. There is no "international police force" that will swoop in and enforce an imaginary law.
The first Gulf War (Saddam invading Kuwait) was a textbook case of a "legal invasion". The relevant "international law" that was followed here was: (i) seek a UNSC authorization for military action, (ii) if approved by the UNSC, launch military action.
Heads of state believe, and argue, that some courses of action violate international law and others don't.
Scholars have written about international law for centuries. Their writings have been read, believed, and shaped international affairs.
The UN authorizes some actions and not others. Some wars have been fought as police actions because it was determined by the UN that international law has been violated.
Are you staking out some sort of idiosyncratic semantic position? Are we just arguing about words here?
The analogy with domestic law enforcement is imperfect. But many, many people find the analogy useful.
You are trying to pretend something into existence. There only are treaties. Even the Geneva Conventions, which are pretty widely accepted, are only treaties between members. There's no "law" in any way. There is no international body that creates laws or that enforces them.
Echoing others who noted this is, as most Trump moves are, a superficial action meant to grab the headlines. Will not end well because there is no plan in place, no clear definition of success. I have no way of knowing this but I would assume Maduro actually made a deal with Trump secretly and is going willingly to face a mock trial but will be eventually let off the hook in the same way that was recently done for Honduran narco president Juan Orlando Hernández.
> Will not end well because there is no plan in place, no clear definition of success.
This was a problem in Afghanistan, but that's because the occupation of Afghanistan just didn't end. You don't need to "succeed" by an undefined metric to stop doing something.
I’m skeptical. The way this goes well is if there’s a leader in Venezuela who’s 1) well-positioned to take the reigns of the government without a destructive power struggle and 2) once they’ve consolidated power, is inclined and politically able to assume a more US-friendly position than Maduro. This is a very narrow victory-condition.
Do we know who Venezuelan leader might be? Have we gamed out how they might take power, identified key obstacles, and run the numbers on the most plausible scenarios? I would feel a lot better about taking “calculated risks” if I’d seen evidence that anyone had done actual calculations…
You see he assumed that Trump and Rubio had a really great secret plan to reconstruct Venezuela, or that democracy would spontaneously arise in a vacuum as has happened in so many prior cases, but unfortunately the situation is complicated and messy, anyhow look at the bright shiny object over there!
Maybe it will work out but posting this just 12 hours later feels like the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Best case is something like Panama after Noriega, but note that Panama was a US ally and not in league with Russia and Iran.
This take of Richard’s is naive in the extreme. We can all agree that Maduro’s exit is, in and of itself, a Good Thing. However, carrying it out unilaterally, without reference to the US’s own constitutional requirements such as Congressional approval, speaks to the US regime acquiring the status of a rogue state. I would be hugely surprised if any thought has been given to what comes after - the regime appears to be in place still and apparently there are still some 30,000 Cubans in the country. Cuba itself relies on Venezuelan oil, so we can look forward to a Cuba refugee crisis as that runs out. So well done Trump, who gets a few good headlines from naive conservative pundits and the rest of us enjoy the years of chaos to come.
I have to agree. And I would put much more emphasis on how Hanania, by focusing entirely on a narrow slice of the ‘expedience’ pie, is massively glossing over the fact that he is celebrating the escalating consolidation of the United States as a rogue regime and with the apparently full complicity now of our military and the ‘Accelerationist’ tech bro billionaire consigliari who, besides himself, are all that Trump cares about fighting for and with. This is not about Justice for bad guys. It’s about consolidating the criminal syndicate of the ‘Don’ of the Americas.
Don’t forget oil.
I think you're mistaken there. What Congressional approval is required by the Constitution? President Trump did not try to declare war, which only Congress can do and is probably now an obsolete anachronistic formality anyway. The President has a free hand in foreign policy, just as kings in the 18th century did. (The powers of the President were considered to be king-like. It was only the method of installation and removal that was different in the Republic. As the powers of kings declined after 1787 as Parliament became supreme, the powers of the U.S. President have remained as in 1787.) Any treaties concluded by the President's executive team must be ratified by the Senate before they become domestic law, but the Congress does not itself participate in the treaty negotiation process. So President Trump has every authority to do the Maduro thing on his own say-so.
And even if Congress had approved the arrest of President Maduro, how would this make the United States any less of a rogue state than President Trump doing it through his own lawful executive authority? Critics of the U.S. would still call you a rogue state no matter who approved it. They would say it required UN Security Council authority, or the blessing of the Pope, or some Higher Authority, not just your own Congressional authority.
As a practical matter, the effort to get Congressional approval with a formal public vote would have compromised operational secrecy and sacrificed surprise.
Tell me you’re a Fed Soc donor without telling me you’re a Fed Soc Donor.
I think you've answered your own question of why the president never seeks the approval of Congress for rogue actions. BECAUSE they know it would screw with our international status, such as the Senate ratifying treaties, which by your thinking is just another obsolete legacy of the Old Republic.
Hi Retard.
The Congress can impeach the President if it thinks he broke the law.
"thinking" he broke the law is not relevant. Caring if he broke the law is. He broke the law. They don't care.
Impeachment is a political act, not a legal proceeding. The Congress can impeach the president for any reason it chooses to call a high crime/misdemeanor. But that is the Congress's only remedy. The President is above the ordinary criminal law as long as he holds office because the Justice Dept. won't indict a sitting President. He is bound only by the Constitution and the only remedy when he violates the Constitution is impeachment. But Congress has to care enough to want to. As you say, they don't. (And the only penalty the Senate can apply on conviction is removal from office.)
Isn't this pretty similar to what the US did with Noriega in 1989? And has it been considered a rogue state ever since? Or was it considered unconstitutional then?
The timeline seems pretty much the same: an unrecognized head of state has an indictment obtained prior to a limited operation ( https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1422326/dl ), the head of state is removed and brought to the US to face charges in the US court system.
Surface similarities, but quite different situations, motivations and scale. Noriega was out scumbag, until he wasn't. Read the Wikipedia for the Noriega operation. And Panama has not been a "rogue state" since then. Quite stable politically and economically, democratic - not quite Costa Rica or Chile but better than many in Latin America.
The accusation of being a rogue state was directed against the US.
Because 1989 Bush administration was similarly rogue. Sure thing ...
The sky is falling and we're all doomed... yeah yeah...
Not sure this is a “regime change”.
Maduro’s (probably) gone, but the regime isn’t. The VP is in charge, the generals are still there, the Maduro judges are still in place.
Might be the start of something might not.
This is my intial thought on it. I'm skeptical that Maduro was thr sole person holding his regime together or the sole problem with it. Didn't he inherit control from Hugo Chavez, who initially caused all the problems in Venezuela? Do we have some reason to think that Delcy Rodríguez won't just continue running Venezuela into the ground? Regime change may be warranted but removing the president likely isnt regime change, its likely just theatrics.
Diosdado Cabello is the real power in Venezuela now. He has the most influence over the military and other parts of the regime, not Rodríguez. Not capturing him with Maduro was a bad move, I think, unless the CIA wants the regime to start infighting for control.
I wasn't enthusiastic about this operation, and I'm not enthusiastic about further operations either. Can we wait a bit to see if Cabello does a better job managing the economy?
Hopefully Trump will follow through and ensure we see real change. It wouldn't be so difficult, given how easy it was to arrest their president.
Trump is not well known for following through.
Yes, successful nation building in a country has a strong correlation with ease of arrest its dictator. It is brilliance like yours that I came to Substack for. Please elaborate, I look forward to learning about the methods of easy nation building, and especially with respect to Venezuela, which, of course you are an expert on, right?
Right. Just like, "This was about as clean of an overthrow as one can imagine." Do we know that, 12 hours in?
" ... a great act of heroism?" In what world? What even motivated this? Beyond Wag the Dog, opportunities for billionaires, and the need to further Putin's "spheres of influence" world view?
What part of the strike outweighed honoring the constitution in this calculus of yours? Not asking to be snarky.
Congress authorized his arrest when they passed the many laws Maduro was indicted on. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1422326/dl
These laws have long been enforced against foreign nationals, occasionally with military aid, like with Noriega. They could always restrict the laws to not apply to De Facto Rulers, but they haven’t so far.
By all means, this is definitely a Gray Area, but if Congress truly thinks it’s an illegal act, they can always impeach Trump or pass a Private Bill to free Maduro. But they almost certainly won’t.
To clarify, this was certainly a violation of International Law. This violates the UN Charter and Customary International Law very clearly. Extradition Treaties are a way to do this legally under International Law, and Trump completely flaunted any international law authority.
The Gray area is in US Constitutional Law. Maduro is welcome to appeal his arrest under US Constitutional Law, and that’s where the Gray area is. I expect the Supreme Court to decide with the US, if they even bother to grant cert.
American geopolitical interests are important. This was a good thing. Nobody has been harmed by doing this. We aren't setting a precedent, since coups against latam are a common American tradition.
I see no problem here.
“Nobody has been harmed by doing this” is ridiculously premature 12 hours later, but also didn’t some Venezuelans die in the strikes?
Venezuela has confirmed that civilians have died
I think Brandon’s post is intentionally sarcastic
Don't be dense. Relatively. This is foreign policy. A coup costs many lives typically. This seems to be nearly bloodless as far as innocent lives.
I agree, American geopolitical interests are important. I look forward to hearing a thousand people tell me this who were telling me 'Americans have no interest in what happens in foreign countries' a few days ago. But anyway: may I ask what geopolitical interests were threatened by the power of the Maduro regime? How is this different from Iraq/Afghanistan?
Securing their oil in the hands of a puppet regime will likely boost the economy.
OPEC prides itself on annoying the US and its allies, like Everything Russia does, to the Saudis trying to strangle American oil by mass dumping supply to kill American oil profits. They are weakened now that we are both a massive oil exporter (Biden was actually very good in the oil wars against OPEC. My one favorable opinion on him in the FOPO sphere.) and Venezuela can be turned to our interests in fucking their cartel, rather than us.
Maduro was so bad that many latam people will think more favorably of America with his ouster.
Less refugees in America. Many leeches on the American welfare team will feel patriotic fervor to go home and rebuild their broken nation.
What makes you think this violated the constitution?
Congress is supposed to declare war or at least authorize military force
Wrong. Congress declares war, but the Constitution lets the Commander‑in‑Chief initiate limited operations. Only formal wars need a declaration. Hence presidents have used military force overseas without Congress voting first for decades. Plus the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires reporting to Congress for hostilities exceeding 60–90 days, but does not prohibit the President from acting unilaterally in limited operations.
I think most people would consider kidnapping the head of state an act of war.
The US does not recognize Maduro as the legitimate head of state of Venezuela. That's Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/world/americas/venezuela-election-gonzalez-maduro.html
Correct, and to put things into perspective: the Biden administration placed a $25M bounty on Maduro in January of 2025 without triggering a state of war, based on this same reasoning. Note how the Western powers have placed no bounties on Putin, as he ultimately is recognized as Russia's legitimate head of state and any such bounty would be targeting him in this role - which *is* generally considered an act of war.
And who chose not to recognise Maduro as the head of state? I presume the US State Department or the President. So you're just describing an act of war with extra steps.
Assume that George W Bush stole the 2000 election... would it have been legitimate for Venezuela and Cuba to launch limited operations to kidnap Bush? And if not, why not?
You are confusing an "act of war" with a "declaration of war". They are very different things. You need to look this up. It is fundamental to understanding a muscular foreign policy.
Countries don't need to declare war to conduct war. Indeed, the Wikipedia discussion considers declarations of war to be anachronisms of a pre-1945 era.
Read the war powers act. It states that the president can unilaterally use military force without congressional authorization ONLY in a national emergency in self defense. That absolutely didn’t happen here
Article 2, Section 2. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." The Constitution separates declaring war (Congress) from conducting military operations (the President). It does not say "the President may only move troops after Congress votes first."
1541(c) is explicitly a policy statement meaning that it's not enforceable. Congress labeled it congressional "purpose and policy." But even so, the existence of communism is a national emergency (prong 3). In a perfect world, we'd destroy every single communist regime, but since our time and resources are limited, we have to pick and choose our battles. And this was a battle we won.
If they're just removing Maduro and leaving everyone else in place, why should we expect Venezuela to change? And if we're installing our own puppets, it won't be a random draw from South American governments, it'll be the specific kind of government Trump likes -- that is, one that's easy for him and his cronies to loot from.
I'd have liked this if Obama's team did it, or even Bush's (they made a million mistakes but at least their goal was a free Iraq). I don't know if Trump's people can arrange a free Venezuela, but even if they can, will they really want to?
It's kinda weird how you make this all about yourself.
Really weirdly narcissistic - the first few paragraphs, at least.
Yeah I couldn't really get past the first few paragraphs. Too much self-aggrandizement for my tastes.
I like how you're not even bright enough to try to make up an excuse about how you forgot about Congress. Brilliant stuff from the new right intellectuals.
The President has a free hand in foreign policy and commanding the military. Congress has no role there except voting the necessary appropriation of tax money, ratifying treaties, and declaring war. But warlike activity can be conducted under purely executive presidential authority without a formal declaration of war, and indeed has in most warring countries including the U.S. since 1945.
Congress is irrelevant to this operation in Venezuela. If it thinks President Trump's actions amounted to a high crime and misdemeanor it can impeach him.
If you think bombing a sovereign nation's capital city and sequestering its head of state is not an act of war, regardless of your opinions regarding that nation and its leader, my impression is that you are not very bright either, but you are at least engaging with specific issues that are in question rather than the author of this blog who seems to assume them away. As you have probably noticed by now, there are in fact multiple members of Congress calling for impeachment, so it is at least hardly a foregone conclusion. Kudos on achieving this bare minimum of inquiry-- I wish you the best of luck on your intellectual journey.
A lot of intellectual pretensionism in this commentariat, I notice.
Genuinely curious, I thought they needed an AUMF or 48 hour notice to congress at the very least to be able to.
But aren't the VP and minister of defense still in alive and I'm the country? It doesn't seem like the regime or it's institutions were fully toppled.
This sets a precedent. It's nice to say "that's alright if they're socialist dictators", but there's no reason to believe these interventions would strictly be reserved for that case. Trump's rhetoric towards Canada and Denmark wasn't much weaker than what he used with Maduro. He's been accusing Canada of being a major source of drug trafficking into the U.S., like Venezuela. Incidentally Trump's already gesturing at Mexico - https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-hints-at-next-target-after-shocking-invasion/
He's talked about how the US has to "get" Greenland, and that Canada should be the 51st state. What's stopping him from just seizing Greenland, at this point? What's stopping him from invading Canada?
Realpolitik constrains him, I'd imagine. Same as why in a vacuum this act might be on the net a positive for the United States due to Venezuela's inability to meaningfully retaliate and the US populace's relative indifference to Venezuela's welfare.
That being said, I think this comment motions towards a more important point; unilateral acts such as these continue to alienate our allies in a world where we increasingly need them.
The general vibe that "international law doesn't matter" is very very off base.
The 1930s were bad because international law was broken.
The 1990s were good because international law was robust.
Everything that happens in world affairs is more important because of how it affects the evolution of international law than in itself. International law is the force multiplier. It works full time when the news isn't paying attention.
Usually in intentional affairs, no news is good news, and no news happens because of international law.
So-called "international law" was as irrelevant in the 90s as it was in the 30s, because it has always been a silly, retarded delusion.
Nope. It powerfully influences the conduct of states and is absolutely indispensable to the maintenance of peace. That's easy to prove from game theory and from from history.
Nonsense!
Neither the Rwandan genocide, the breakup of Yugoslavia, or the Congo wars seem particularly great.
Inasmuch as the 1990s were definitely better than the 1930s, I put this up to the lack of a giant global depression and numerous expansionistic great powers jockeying for position. "America is the last game in town, is too scary to fight, and happens to be liberal" is not the same thing as "international law was robust." This was a byproduct of us winning the Cold War, not how we won it.
Re: "America is the last game in town, too scary to fight, happens to be liberal" ≠ "International law was robust"
Well put! Pithy! But actually, the combination of American military preeminence with a liberal polity that eschewed conquest actually did invest international law with an important kind of robustness, and the benefits were massive, even if, as you say, the lack of a built-in responsibility to protect as part of international law was a critical weakness.
International law was fairly robust in the 1990s, not because the UN-based World order was operationally competent in itself-- although it was an important and valuable source of legitimacy-- but essentially, because the US volunteered to be the global policeman, more or less in the interests of international law. That was a smart play on our part, and to some extent self-interested, but only because our liberal principles caused us to define the national interest in terms of free trade and world Peace, rather than land grabbing or neo-imperialism.
We've sunk a long ways since then, and made the world a lot more dangerous. We can't just rewind the tape because our relative power is less than it was. But the world in 2015 was a lot better than the world in 2026, and a big part of the reason for that is the stupid and wicked choices that American voters have made. We could put together a pretty decent world order, with the help of liberal allies, if we decided to stop being evil.
The 1930's were bad because evil dictators ran unchecked.
And what would check them? Not just force. Force plus international law.
Case in point: Neville Chamberlain. If he has stood up for international law, he would have stopped Hitler sooner. Ten times less damage.
International law is the way you convert limited force into a far reaching credible threat of force.
There is no such thing as "international law". There are only treaties between nations. There is no "international police force" that will swoop in and enforce an imaginary law.
The first Gulf War (Saddam invading Kuwait) was a textbook case of a "legal invasion". The relevant "international law" that was followed here was: (i) seek a UNSC authorization for military action, (ii) if approved by the UNSC, launch military action.
The UN exists.
The ICC exists.
Heads of state believe, and argue, that some courses of action violate international law and others don't.
Scholars have written about international law for centuries. Their writings have been read, believed, and shaped international affairs.
The UN authorizes some actions and not others. Some wars have been fought as police actions because it was determined by the UN that international law has been violated.
Are you staking out some sort of idiosyncratic semantic position? Are we just arguing about words here?
The analogy with domestic law enforcement is imperfect. But many, many people find the analogy useful.
You are trying to pretend something into existence. There only are treaties. Even the Geneva Conventions, which are pretty widely accepted, are only treaties between members. There's no "law" in any way. There is no international body that creates laws or that enforces them.
Echoing others who noted this is, as most Trump moves are, a superficial action meant to grab the headlines. Will not end well because there is no plan in place, no clear definition of success. I have no way of knowing this but I would assume Maduro actually made a deal with Trump secretly and is going willingly to face a mock trial but will be eventually let off the hook in the same way that was recently done for Honduran narco president Juan Orlando Hernández.
> Will not end well because there is no plan in place, no clear definition of success.
This was a problem in Afghanistan, but that's because the occupation of Afghanistan just didn't end. You don't need to "succeed" by an undefined metric to stop doing something.
I’m skeptical. The way this goes well is if there’s a leader in Venezuela who’s 1) well-positioned to take the reigns of the government without a destructive power struggle and 2) once they’ve consolidated power, is inclined and politically able to assume a more US-friendly position than Maduro. This is a very narrow victory-condition.
Do we know who Venezuelan leader might be? Have we gamed out how they might take power, identified key obstacles, and run the numbers on the most plausible scenarios? I would feel a lot better about taking “calculated risks” if I’d seen evidence that anyone had done actual calculations…
If anyone in authority has, I'm sure they're not going to share them with the likes of you.
said another way: North Korea’s calculation that they needed nuclear weapons to survive was correct. Those incentives ….are problematic
I'm genuinely curious if this article was written out of US chauvinism, ignorance, or pure stupidity.
The funniest result of all this will be:
1. Maduro is scapegoated for everything evil
2. Venezuelan socialism continues under the VP
3. Both sides wrong (no civil war, no regime change)
4. Nothing ever happens
I look forward to Richard rationalizing this forever.
You see he assumed that Trump and Rubio had a really great secret plan to reconstruct Venezuela, or that democracy would spontaneously arise in a vacuum as has happened in so many prior cases, but unfortunately the situation is complicated and messy, anyhow look at the bright shiny object over there!
Maybe it will work out but posting this just 12 hours later feels like the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Best case is something like Panama after Noriega, but note that Panama was a US ally and not in league with Russia and Iran.