The United States is amassing power off Venezuela's coast, with warships, Marine detachments, and surveillance aircraft flowing into the Caribbean under the banner of "counter-narcotics operations." This move comes as President Donald Trump ties Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro to narco-terror networks and cartel structures, while dangling both "talks" and threatening military force.
In an op-ed published in The New York Times, Bret Stephens argues that American intervention would be modest and calibrated, citing the law of unintended consequences. He also mentions differences between Venezuela and Iraq or Libya, including Trump's reluctance to put US boots on the ground for extended periods and the fact that we can learn from past mistakes.
However, this argument rings hollow when considering the echoes of Iraq in America's policy thinking: moral certainty, insistence on a narrow mission, stretched laws accommodating force, and the intellectual confidence that US firepower is justified but prudent and even moral. The Times leans on this posture, which casts Maduro as a stationary object that America can strike without consequence.
We've seen this choreography before. In 2002, the Washington Post assured readers that toppling Saddam Hussein would be a "cakewalk," while the New York Times in 2001 titled an article "The U.S. Must Strike at Saddam Hussein" and framed Saddam as driven by hatred intensified by a tribal culture of blood feuds.
Iraq should have been the end of innocence in American foreign-policy thinking, with its aftermath featuring insurgency, sectarian collapse, and a national debt that Americans will never pay off. The same pattern is repeating itself now.
Critics argue that US firepower cannot topple a foreign regime without creating irreversible instability. Venezuela is already in economic freefall, and any miscalculation could fracture what remains of the country's governance.
This situation requires a more critical examination by the press. What kind of wars do we expect these campaigns to become once they outlast the news cycle? What do they cost us in dollars, in decades, in the quiet bleed of national attention?
The Intercept has long covered authoritarian governments and backsliding democracies around the world. We are independent of corporate interests and rely on donations from members to continue our work.
It's not just about what we're seeing right now - it's about what's at stake. If we don't ask these questions, we'll end up asking them years later when the bills come due, and the country pretends it never saw this coming.
Critics of Trump point out that he is engaged in an authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government, ignoring court orders, putting MAGA loyalists in charge of key agencies, and stripping Congress of its power of the purse. Yet many still cover his actions like politics as usual, with flattering headlines describing him as "unconventional," "testing the boundaries," and "aggressively flexing power."
In an op-ed published in The New York Times, Bret Stephens argues that American intervention would be modest and calibrated, citing the law of unintended consequences. He also mentions differences between Venezuela and Iraq or Libya, including Trump's reluctance to put US boots on the ground for extended periods and the fact that we can learn from past mistakes.
However, this argument rings hollow when considering the echoes of Iraq in America's policy thinking: moral certainty, insistence on a narrow mission, stretched laws accommodating force, and the intellectual confidence that US firepower is justified but prudent and even moral. The Times leans on this posture, which casts Maduro as a stationary object that America can strike without consequence.
We've seen this choreography before. In 2002, the Washington Post assured readers that toppling Saddam Hussein would be a "cakewalk," while the New York Times in 2001 titled an article "The U.S. Must Strike at Saddam Hussein" and framed Saddam as driven by hatred intensified by a tribal culture of blood feuds.
Iraq should have been the end of innocence in American foreign-policy thinking, with its aftermath featuring insurgency, sectarian collapse, and a national debt that Americans will never pay off. The same pattern is repeating itself now.
Critics argue that US firepower cannot topple a foreign regime without creating irreversible instability. Venezuela is already in economic freefall, and any miscalculation could fracture what remains of the country's governance.
This situation requires a more critical examination by the press. What kind of wars do we expect these campaigns to become once they outlast the news cycle? What do they cost us in dollars, in decades, in the quiet bleed of national attention?
The Intercept has long covered authoritarian governments and backsliding democracies around the world. We are independent of corporate interests and rely on donations from members to continue our work.
It's not just about what we're seeing right now - it's about what's at stake. If we don't ask these questions, we'll end up asking them years later when the bills come due, and the country pretends it never saw this coming.
Critics of Trump point out that he is engaged in an authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government, ignoring court orders, putting MAGA loyalists in charge of key agencies, and stripping Congress of its power of the purse. Yet many still cover his actions like politics as usual, with flattering headlines describing him as "unconventional," "testing the boundaries," and "aggressively flexing power."
I'm not buying it. Another US intervention in a foreign country, and they're trying to spin it as some kind of "counter-narcotics operation". Please, we've seen this same script play out before with Iraq and Libya, and look where that got us 
. The echoes of those wars are still resonating through the Middle East, and now they're setting their sights on Venezuela? It's like they think they can just waltz in and fix everything without thinking about the consequences.
. They're trying to justify their military presence by painting Maduro as some kind of one-dimensional villain, but we all know it's more complicated than that.
. Just because they try to put in place safeguards doesn't mean they'll actually work. And what about the economic costs of these interventions? The national debt is already through the roof in the US, and do we really want to add another billions-dollars-per-year expense to the mix?
The Intercept is right to point out that we should be scrutinizing these actions more closely, but I'm skeptical that the press will actually do their job without being swayed by corporate interests. 
Venezuela on fire 
Trump's rhetoric is ratcheting up the drama but what about the real consequences? 
And what's with the "counter-narcotics" spin? 
This feels like just another attempt at regime change without considering the long-term costs 
Insurgency, sectarian collapse, and economic freefall have been the US playbook in Iraq & Libya 
Can we really afford to repeat those mistakes again? 
. The media is just playing along with Trump's narrative without questioning the elephant in the room - what does he really want from Venezuela? 
. We know how that turned out... 
. We can't keep ignoring the potential consequences or treating politics as usual 
.
We need a more critical examination of Trump's actions and the media's role in covering them 
.
. It's like we're stuck in a déjà vu loop from Iraq and Libya 
.
. What kind of wars do we expect these campaigns to become? And what are the real costs to our national attention and stability 
this is exactly what happens when you give a guy with a chip on his shoulder enough ammo to start a war 
those "modest" counter-narcotics operations might just turn into another Gulf War 
mark my words, we're gonna see more of these same failed interventions and the real cost is gonna be huge 
.
. Like, what if it's just a cover for something more nefarious? But at the same time, I don't want to be too quick to assume the worst 
. We can't just sit back and wait for things to get out of hand – we need to be proactive and ask tough questions 
.
. But do we really need to be covering his authoritarian antics like they're just another day at the office? 
WE ALL KNOW THERE'S MORE TO IT THAN THAT!
. The echoes of that mistake are still haunting us today.
. It's just another way to justify intervention and get the US in more hot water 
. We need to critically examine the press coverage of this situation and ask some tough questions 
I'm getting super worried about this situation in Venezuela... 
]
"]
]