Initial Thoughts on Trump's Attack on Venezuela

So, what do I make of Trump's sudden attack on Venezuela and arrest of its leader and his wife?  I must admit to a certain uncertainty here.  There is no doubt that Nicolas Maduro was a nasty dictator, or that he unlawfully overturned the election that should have ousted him. It also appears that Venezuela Americans are happy about this development.  So there is some moral ambiguity here.  Some other thoughts, then rather that a simple endorsement or condemnation.

This was a brilliant operation from a tactical perspective.  Apparently Pete Hegseth's preference for brute force over finesse has not seriously undercut the US armed forces' capacity for finesse.  I should also add that I have seen a handful of comments saying that this operation goes to show that the military will not refuse even the most unlawful order, which strikes me as unrealistic.  Civilian control over the military is basic to our whole system of government.  Civilian leadership makes broad political decisions about what wars to wage, or what general military operations.  The civilian leadership can have bad judgment, but to allow the military to disobey broad political decisions is to undercut the basic principle of civilian control.  A more appropriate example of refusing an unlawful order would be refusing to kill shipwrecked survivors of a naval attack.

Narcotics was obviously a pretext and not a very convincing one at that.  Venezuela is not involved in fentanyl trafficking and has only a fairly minor role in cocaine trafficking.  Not to mention that Trump pardoned Honduran e-Juan Orlando Hernandez, convicted of drug trafficking.  Presumably different members of Team Trump had different motives.  It seems most likely that Marco Rubio approved the attack because he is a general hawk and anti-communist, and because he expected it to be popular in the Cuban and Venezuelan communities in Florida; Pete Hegseth approved as a chance to show off the skill of our military; Susie Wiles approved because she expected it to boost Trump's sagging popularity; Stephen Miller approved because he saw it as a great excuse to say there are no more problems in Venezuela so we can expel all Venezuelan asylum seekers; and Trump saw the attack mostly as a chance to make money off of oil.

So what happens to Venezuela next?  Nobody seems to know.  Trump has said that we are now running things.  At the same time, he is making no serious attempt to overturn the overall system and has allowed Vice President Delcy Rodriguez to take power, with the warning that he may intervene again if she doesn't do what he wants.  Presumably he believes that the threat of future intervention will be enough to ensure compliance, and probably also that an unpopular leader will be in a weaker position to resist than a popular one.  What he means by compliance remains to be seen, except that it means cooperation with oil companies.  What oil companies want to do is anyone's guess.  But presumably what Trump does not want is a prolonged, large-scale occupation which will invariably become unpopular.

 The impact on domestic politics will probably be minor.  Arresting Maduro is overwhelmingly popular with our Cuban and Venezuelan populations, mostly in Florida.  Given that Miami recently elected a Democratic Mayor, that could be significant in the Florida midterms.  I doubt that it will have much impact anywhere else.  People who already opposed Trump will oppose this attack as well.  MAGA supporters are unlikely to get too upset about this violation of their America First principles so long as Trump can offer them a quick and easy victory.  Trump will probably score some points with rightwing hawks, but in the end I suspect that that not much will change.  Hawks who support Trump (Lindsey Graham comes to mind) will be more enthusiastic than ever, while hawks who oppose him (John Bolton, say) will grant him a point or two, but continue to oppose him.  Trump's popular may jump with swing voters, but I suspect this will not be much more than a short-lived sugar high.  His overall popularity will depend on his economic performance.

The potential impact on international politics is alarming.  Politico (can't find link) commented that this attack upends assumptions that Trump is a weak, vacillating leader, unable to keep a secret.   Others  have suggested that this attack is dangerous because it gives Russia and China cover to do the same.  I agree with people who say that Russia and China don't need any cover from Trump to do whatever they want.  Furthermore, all evidence points to Trump being as weak and vacillating as ever in dealing with these two powers.  But it is true that he no longer looks weak and vacillating in the Western Hemisphere.  This is altogether a bad thing.  Trump is a bully and a thug and operates the foreign policy of a bully and thug -- kicking around anyone to weak to resist while avoiding conflict with anyone who can offer a real challenge.  Up till now Trump's main foreign policy weapon has been tariffs and the threat to crush anyone's economy if they don't give him his way.  But tariffs have significant domestic blowback, and the Supreme Court may very well clip Trump's wings in that regard.  The threat to send in the military to arrest any Western Hemisphere leader who displeases Trump is a far more dangerous one, and one that now had real credibility.  When GW Bush invaded Iraq, he proclaimed the doctrine of preventive attack -- in effect, the right to invade any country we wanted, at any time, for any reason.  I had strong moral objections to this doctrine and had trouble knowing which to fear more -- that the invasion would fail, or that it would succeed and encourage him to do it again.  That fear is coming back.