U.S. military action in Venezuela draws comparisons to Iraq war

Key Concepts

• US Intervention in Venezuela: President Trump’s stated intention to “run” Venezuela following potential leadership changes.
• Comparison to Iraq War: Analysis of similarities and differences between the proposed Venezuela action and the 2003 US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.
• Economic Motivations: The stated goal of accessing Venezuelan wealth and resources without significant US military expenditure.
• Precedent & International Response: Concerns about the potential for the US action to establish a precedent for intervention in other countries and the reactions from international allies and potential adversaries.
• Stabilization Challenges: The difficulties inherent in stabilizing a country post-intervention, drawing on the experience in Iraq.

Contrasting Venezuela Intervention with the Iraq War: A Preliminary Assessment

The discussion centers on President Trump’s declaration regarding potential US involvement in Venezuela, specifically the assertion of “running” the country after a change in leadership. This statement immediately prompted comparisons to the 2003 US intervention in Iraq, a point directly addressed by CBS Evening News anchor Tony Dokoupil to Defense Secretary Pete Hexith. Hexith framed the Venezuela approach as fundamentally different, stating, “It’s the exact opposite. I mean, we spent decades and decades and spent purchased in blood and got nothing economically in return.” He highlighted President Trump’s stated intention to secure access to Venezuelan wealth and resources “without having to spend American blood,” emphasizing a shift towards a strategically driven, economically focused intervention.

Early Skepticism and the Iraq Parallel

CBS News national security contributor Sam Bengrad, however, offered a more cautious assessment. While acknowledging the stated difference in approach, Bengrad argued, “it’s just too soon to tell” if the Venezuela action will truly diverge from the Iraq experience. He pointed to the lack of concrete details regarding the plan for stabilizing Venezuela, attracting investment, and ensuring the safety of American companies seeking to exploit its oil reserves. Bengrad’s personal experience working in Iraq in 2007 informed his skepticism, noting the immense resources – “hundreds of billions of dollars” – and manpower – “hundreds of thousands of members of the military” – deployed in Iraq, alongside the establishment of the Coalition Provisional Authority and numerous subsequent ambassadors, ultimately failed to achieve lasting stability. He underscored that Venezuela is “about twice the size of Iraq,” suggesting the challenges could be even greater.

Concerns Regarding Precedent and International Implications

The conversation then shifted to the potential for the US action to set a dangerous precedent. Dokoupil inquired about concerns that the US might apply this model to other countries deemed strategically valuable, citing Greenland and other Latin American nations. Bengrad confirmed that such concerns were being voiced by colleagues in Europe and the Western Hemisphere, despite attempts by leaders like the Prime Minister of Denmark and the President of Mexico to downplay the rhetoric.

The core concern is that the US intervention in Venezuela could be interpreted as a justification for other nations to pursue their own objectives within their respective spheres of influence. Bengrad specifically highlighted Taiwan in relation to China, stating that the US action could be viewed as a “green light” for other countries to act similarly. This raises the possibility of a destabilizing effect on the international order, with nations potentially feeling emboldened to intervene in the affairs of others.

The Stabilization Challenge: A Key Obstacle

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the immense difficulty of stabilizing a country following intervention. The Iraq experience serves as a cautionary tale, demonstrating that significant financial investment and military presence do not guarantee success. Bengrad’s statement, “We still don't know what the plan is to stabilize the country, run the country…,” underscores the critical need for a comprehensive and well-defined strategy beyond simply securing access to resources. The lack of such a plan is a primary reason for the skepticism surrounding the potential success of the Venezuela intervention.

Conclusion

The discussion reveals a significant divergence in perspectives regarding the potential US involvement in Venezuela. While Defense Secretary Hexith presents it as a strategically and economically sound departure from the costly and ultimately unsuccessful Iraq War, Sam Bengrad offers a more measured assessment, emphasizing the lack of concrete details and the inherent challenges of stabilizing a country post-intervention. The potential for setting a dangerous precedent and the reactions of international actors further complicate the situation, suggesting that the long-term consequences of this action remain highly uncertain. The core takeaway is that accessing resources without a robust plan for stabilization and considering the broader geopolitical implications could replicate the failures experienced in Iraq.