The deployment of US naval forces to the Caribbean near Venezuela has sparked renewed discussions about military intervention in Latin America.
Some critics view this move as reckless and reminiscent of past Cold War strategies, which might seem a bit extreme—perhaps even unnecessary. Yet, after years of diplomatic failures, confronting the situation head-on may be the only viable option to restore democracy and order in Venezuela.
This crisis has roots that stretch back further than just the current administrations. It essentially began with the death of Hugo Chavez in 2013, leading to Nicolás Maduro taking power—a choice made more for loyalty than leadership. Since then, Venezuela has devolved into a state riddled with criminal enterprises, departing from any semblance of a stable democracy.
Despite US backing for opposition leaders like Juan Guaido, Maduro has consolidated power through manipulation and the backing of countries such as Cuba, Russia, and China. While some Venezuelans hope for change without violence, a significant portion—67%—endorsed the opposition in the July 2024 elections, even amidst claims of electoral fraud, indicating widespread discontent with the current regime.
The Trump administration’s recent classifications of the Cartel de los Salles as a terrorist organization reflect a significant shift in how the US perceives Venezuela’s governance. It suggests that Venezuela may be viewed less as a legitimate state and more as a criminal entity, potentially justifying military action under US counterterrorism laws.
Military options need not involve full-scale invasions; rather, targeted strikes, naval blockades, or special operations could disrupt Maduro’s power and support legitimate transitions. The intent isn’t to “coerce” but to influence behavior to foster democratic governance.
However, any military action carries risks. It could worsen Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis, endanger civilians, destabilize neighboring countries, and exacerbate the refugee situation. Over 7.7 million Venezuelans have fled since 2014—an alarming number, considering it constitutes more than a quarter of the population.
Unilateral actions without global support could violate international norms and heighten anti-US sentiment across Latin America. Yet, many residents in the region appear to prioritize different priorities than US perceptions, which complicates matters.
History cautions us that change in leadership doesn’t automatically lead to democracy. Power vacuums can result in chaos or fuel new authoritarian figures. Despite efforts by the opposition to engage democratically, abuses have persisted, leaving a sense of urgency in addressing these matters.
Domestically, the consequences could also be severe. If a military operation results in American casualties, public support might dwindle sharply—it’s a valid concern that critics of US foreign policy frequently raise.
Nevertheless, this concern must be set against the risks of inaction. Under Maduro, Venezuela has become a center of drug trafficking, corruption, and unrest, posing a direct threat to US national security and undermining democratic movements in the region.
Those in security studies recognize that military force can serve various functions: defense, deterrence, and coercion. The naval deployment sends a clear message to Maduro’s regime, but it must be approached carefully. Mobilizing forces without a genuine willingness to act can appear weak and encourage adversaries.
The aim isn’t simply to inhibit current actions but to facilitate a governmental change. Many Latinos, however, tend to prefer a nonviolent transition. Still, the evidence indicates a shift might only happen with the threat or use of force. Addressing criminal and terrorist threats justifies security measures that could ultimately benefit both the US and the region.
Justification alone won’t ensure success. Any use of military power should fit within a broader strategy encompassing diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and planning for post-conflict situations, ensuring actions are proportional and coordinated.
Military force shouldn’t be the first course of action. However, once diplomacy fails and entities resort to criminality, the calculus shifts. If the US is genuinely committed to upholding democracy and security in the Western Hemisphere, it must be prepared to take decisive steps—though not without caution.
The views expressed here don’t necessarily align with the National Defense University or the US government.
