Bad end likely for Trump in Venezuela

With the illegal snatching of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, along with a series of deadly missile and drone strikes inside Venezuela, U.S. President Donald Trump’s actions have still left many questions unanswered.

As is often the case, it is hard to know for sure the exact number of Venezuelans included in the dead and injured. It is also difficult to tell what the fallout from the attacks will be within Venezuela itself, in the overall region and at the global level.

All of this reminded me of the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the socio-economic disaster that unfolded afterwards. Put simply, it is easy to destroy and not so easy to rebuild in the wake of such an attack. They are obviously not the same situations and Venezuela has never claimed that it possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Still, the two disparate cases share a number of similarities, including repeated references to terrorism, imminent security threats, dictatorial leaders and the need for greater democratization. Much of the loose talk coming out of Washington these days — as it was during the run-up to Gulf War II — is the inescapable focus on “regime change.”

This brings me back to the issue of whether the military strikes on Venezuela, like the attacks on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, are underscored by the so-called “Bush Doctrine” of the early 2000s. Stated differently, is the Trump White House borrowing a page or two from former U.S. president George W. Bush’s failed foreign policy strategy?

After the horrific 9/11 attacks on the U.S., the Bush administration immediately turned its attention to exacting revenge and erroneously linking Saddam to those unspeakable acts of terrorism in 2001. In short, Saddam was viewed as a serious threat to the U.S. homeland, brandished WMDs and was willing to supply nuclear weapons to various global terrorist groups. In Bush’s eyes, there was no getting around the fact that Saddam had to be removed from power.

For the most part, the Bush Doctrine consisted of four major tenets. First, it rested largely on the belief that the U.S. was, and always needed to be, the primary world power (especially in military terms). Secondly, multilateral diplomacy was a distraction and waste of time and the only way forward was an America acting unilaterally.

Thirdly, the U.S. was no longer going to shy away from employing overwhelming military force to secure its vital interests in an era when nuclear deterrence wouldn’t work against global terror networks. Most controversially, it made clear that “pre-emptive war” — otherwise known as bomb first and ask questions later — was not off the table. Finally, the U.S. government needed to reshape the world in the image of America, and thus facilitate the spread of greater democratization and market capitalism. Crudely put, rogue states such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea would require a full-blown regime change and facelift.

Now, apply all of this to how the Trump team has justified its illegal attack on Venezuela. Indeed, nothing signals U.S. primacy more than showcasing and demonstrating U.S. military prowess with unbridled and pre-emptive “shock and awe.” These strikes were clearly about sending a powerful message to other world leaders and governments — namely, don’t mess with us.

There is no disputing the fact that Trump was hellbent on acting outside of international fora such as the United Nations and the Organization of American States. For Trump and his ilk, unilateralism is the name of the diplomatic game today.

Additionally, using significant military power against Venezuela is how Trump envisages international relations. Like Bush, his White House equates military firepower with advancing U.S. economic, security, political and diplomatic interests.

Lastly, Trump is not even hiding the fact that he wants regime change (or a “judicious transition,” if you will) in Venezuela — and is willing to utilize military violence to get it. Whether or not he actually wants a democratic Venezuela is an open question, and his sidelining of Venezuelan Nobel laureate María Machado is not encouraging. But he certainly does covet a more pro-U.S. and capitalist-minded government in Caracas. Add in for good measure the Trump aim of gaining access to, and control over, Venezuela’s vast energy resources.

Of course, we all know what happened in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I’m sure that things won’t unfold exactly as that in Venezuela because Trump is extremely reluctant to deploy boots on the ground.

But that won’t take away from the fact that this is all likely — as it did in Iraq — to turn out very badly for the U.S. Indeed, one of the major takeaways from the 2003 invasion and the Bush doctrine was that very little planning was put into managing the post-invasion milieu.

And as is likely to also happen in Venezuela, it’s always the unintended consequences that no grand strategy takes into account that will haunt Trump going forward.

Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.