Posted on 01/07/2026 10:19:15 PM PST by SeekAndFind
After this weekend’s stunning raid to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, many analysts are asking, what comes next? Most charge that the Trump administration lacks a clear plan for the future of Venezuela. Some have expressed worries that U.S. military action in Venezuela will become a costly quagmire, like Iraq or Afghanistan. Others are puzzled and exasperated that the Trump administration has not provided a full-throated endorsement of Venezuela’s democratically elected opposition.
In fact, a clearer plan is coming into place. It relies on Washington using carrots and sticks to coax Venezuela’s leadership to change policies in a way that are more conducive to American hard security and economic interests, and it seems self-consciously devised to avoid repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Trump administration is both studiously avoiding entanglement in a military quagmire and overpromising on democracy promotion.
Initially, President Donald Trump raised some doubts about this plan in a press conference on Saturday in which he said, of Venezuela, “We’re gonna run it.” Did this mean the United States would send in a follow-on occupation force and appoint a provisional governing authority, like in Iraq? Would it install opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado as the new leader in Caracas? Something else?
Secretary of State Marco Rubio helped to clarify the administration’s plans in a series of interviews on the Sunday morning talk shows. He specified the goals for U.S. policy in Venezuela. The objectives are policy change, not regime change, and they center on the concrete security and economic interests of the United States.
Democracy in Venezuela is a longer-term aspiration, but not a realistic near-term priority. As he told Kristen Welker, “We all wish to see a bright future for Venezuela, a transition to democracy.
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...
So, why let Maduro’s VP Delcy Rodriguez run the country?
Trump administration assessed that Vice President Delcy Rodríguez and current regime officials were better positioned to maintain the respect of the military and security services and hold the country together than the democratic opposition.
The objective is not to prioritize the well-being of Venezuelans per se, but there is an assumption that by pursuing American interests, the Venezuelan people will also prosper. This is a reasonable assumption.
Close American security and economic partners in Europe and Asia, for example, have done much better over the decades than those that have tried to oppose the United States.
Would you rather be a citizen of South Korea or North Korea today?
To achieve its ambitious security and economic goals, the Trump administration has outlined a strategy of using American economic and military power to coax the new leadership in Caracas—for at least the time being, that is Rodríguez—to change Venezuela’s policy on key issues.
Former Maduro regime insiders will be judged based on their behavior going forward, not past misdeeds. As Trump said, “They’re acting much differently now than they would’ve acted two days ago.”
It is a classic dual-track approach. If Rodríguez complies, there will be a cessation of military threats, a lifting of economic pressure, and a promise of large-scale American private-sector investment. As Trump put it, “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”
If, on the other hand, Rodríguez and the new leaders in Caracas do not comply, Washington will continue to strangle Venezuela economically. If necessary, it could also use military force and give the Maduro treatment to Rodríguez or others.
I think Trump is trying to learn his lessons from the nation building fiascos of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Trump’s current strategy seems self-consciously designed to avoid the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan. The cardinal sin in Iraq and Afghanistan was the absence of a clear and consistent strategy. There are two approaches that could have worked.
1) The Pentagon could have gone in, smashed the Baathists and the Taliban, captured or killed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, and gotten out quickly with a warning to the next governments that they will face the same fate if they support terrorism or pursue weapons of mass destruction.
2) Alternatively, Washington could have announced that Iraq and Afghanistan would become the new Germany and Japan. It was going to go in with 100,000-plus troops and stay forever.
Instead, Washington settled on the one strategy that would not work. It was half in and half out for 20 years.
In Venezuela, the Trump administration is selecting option one. The military plan, as we saw last weekend, was to get in and get out quickly and threaten the new leadership to do better or face the consequences.
The second and related sin in Iraq and Afghanistan was that the goals shifted and expanded over time from hard national security interests to more amorphous nation-building objectives. Washington started with the more limited hard security goals of removing al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan and of preventing Saddam from pursuing weapons of mass destruction. These were achievable goals—both were, in fact, achieved.
Over time, however, there was mission creep. The goal in both countries expanded into nation-building, economic development, and democratization. These were much more ambitious goals—goals that ultimately failed.
In Venezuela, the Trump administration is clearly prioritizing hard national security and economic interests and is reluctant to over-promise on democracy promotion.
Will the strategy work? It essentially rests on the big bet that coercion can transform a socialist adversary into a compliant partner. Much now depends on whether Rodríguez will play along.
Trump initially reported that Rodríguez offered “whatever you need” and noted “she really doesn’t have a choice.” She gave a defiant speech on Sunday, but was that just for domestic consumption? Already by Monday, she was striking a more conciliatory tone.
It is early days, too early to assess the effectiveness of the strategy.
My strategy is kill the leaders, arm the local people and they will sort things out quickly. Offer to help set up a republic like ours but better where there are no NGO’s and severe punishments for those that take bribes to sell out their country.
Nobody cares about well-being of Venezuelans which is likely to worsen.
Tye idea is that their oil goes exclusively to the US and exclusively exchanged for the US goods and services. The former is below and latter is above market price.
Killing the leaders and arming the locals is like removing an HOA board and putting the retards with the loudest mouths and lowest IQs in charge.
LOL. Sure. Just like Bush leaned the lessons of Vietnam.
Why not if it truly the will of the people there?
RE: Why not if it truly the will of the people there?
Because after decades of being under two thugs and guns all confiscated from ordinary citizens, you want the transition to be done slowly, not abruptly.
But then again, we can't even manage to pull that off blue states in this country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.