Whether in our "backyard," or 6,000 miles away, the same questions must be first addressed insofar as: what exactly our objectives are (aside from kicking out Maduro), size and impact of the operation, the ramifications for involvement (and noninvolvement), who the friendlies are, what defines success, and exit strategy. For those who aren't aware, Venezuela isn't exactly friendly territory; at least two generations there have been inculcated with the narrative that the US is an arrogant, aggressive bully.. as such, let's not harbor any "cheering us on the street" notions. They don't like Maduro, but they did like Chavez. The last thing this country wants is yet another bloody and costly quagmire, so those who feel it's an absolute necessity have a tall order on their hands to sell this to the general public. Fortunately so far President Trump - unlike Bush - has shown restraint against engaging the military recklessly. The sales job will first have to be presented to him.
Unfortunately this is not just a Venezuela problem. Russia, China and especially Cuba are involved in the country’s affairs. Its a complex and vexing challenge for Trump, to be sure. Compounding the problem for him is the problem you alluded to (i.e., our history of getting into bloody and costly quagmires that were lacking exit strategies).
That’s a discussion for another thread but suffice to say that since Trump has already committed to backing Guaido our national prestige and credibility are on the line, not just with Venezuela but with many other nations in the region and elsewhere. This ups the ante.
Not suggesting we launch a major invasion of Venezuela. Just saying we have a clear interest in stabilizing the country, sending a message to our adversaries, and containing the problem. Covert military operations and/or other kinetic pressures are almost certainly being evaluated and may be necessary if the chaos and violence doesn’t end soon.