Military officials are also mindful of the escalatory effect that even positioning ships or other assets closer to Venezuela, to be on standby in the event of an emergency, could have. Officials said that as of Friday afternoon the Navy had not been asked to move ships near the coast of Venezuela. A hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, was dispatched to the Colombian port of Riohacha last fall to treat Venezuelan migrants but returned to the United States several weeks ago.<doc-sep>Political scientist Aaron Rapport has shown that the policymakers who focus most on the benefits of interventions and regime-change missions are exactly the ones who often have the hardest time planning them. When they’re too focused on the potential upsides, they often overlook the practical challenges. Their misplaced certainty in their own assessments gives them a dangerously reassuring overconfidence in their decisions, as the policymakers are sure that their goals can be achieved quickly and cheaply. As Melissa Willard-Foster has shown, when major powers see strong domestic divisions in a foreign country, as is true in Venezuela right now, they often assume that regime change won’t be costly and that the opposition will happily work with them. That can be a treacherous assumption.<doc-sep>Donald Trump has long mused about his power to force military intervention in other countries. That power — and rhetoric — might be tested soon as Venezuela's protests against its leader, Nicolas Maduro, grow. On Tuesday, Trump and Mike Pence met with National Security Advisor John Bolton and a crop of Florida politicians (including Marco Rubio and Rick Scott) to discuss Venezuela. Pence also delivered a message to the South American country, recognizing Venezuela's National Assembly as the only vestige of democracy in the country and calling Maduro “a dictator with no legitimate claim to power." Maduro hit back, ordering a “revision” of diplomatic ties with Washington. Venezuelans opposing Nicolás Maduro, with the verbal support of the Trump administration, are taking to the streets to protest their country's president as tensions rapidly rise between the South American country and the US. In the last few days, Venezuelans have risen up against Maduro, who was sworn in earlier this month for a new six-year term following an election that many across the world considered a fraudulent power grab. What began as small-scale protests on Monday have now escalated to demonstrations that, by Wednesday, had left at least one protester dead. The new demonstrations are being led by opposition leader Juan Guaidó, the president of Venezuela's National Assembly, who on Tuesday was commended by US Vice President Mike Pence for his courage to stand up against Maduro. In a message to Venezuela, Pence said the US backs the Venezuelan opposition's move to oust Maduro. Pence's message was part of President Donald Trump's administration decision to capitalize on the popular outrage in Venezuela to deliver a blow to Maduro's presidency. The president and Pence have met with Florida politicians, including Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, to discuss the situation in the country. On Tuesday, Pence called Maduro a “dictator with no legitimate claim to power.” In his message — delivered in English but with some Spanish sprinkled in between — Pence offered opposition leaders America's support, saying the protests are “a call for freedom.” "[Maduro] has never won the presidency in a free and fair election, and has maintained his grip of power by imprisoning anyone who dares to oppose him," Pence said. In his message, Pence commended Guaidó for his "courageous decision" to "declare Maduro a usurper, and call for the establishment of a transitional government." Multiple foreign government and organizations are recognizing Guaidó as Venezuela's leader. According to the Washington Post, Guaidó, 35, is trying to unite an opposition long-plagued by infighting to lead the largest wave of protests in the country since 2017. Luis Almagro, head of the Organization of American States, has even recognized Guaidó as Venezuela’s "interim president." In response to Pence's remarks, Maduro said Tuesday night that "never before has an official of such high rank gone out in the name of his government to say the Venezuelan opposition should overthrow the government." He then threatened diplomatic action against the United States "within hours." As of Wednesday afternoon, Venezuela has yet to announce any steps. The fragile relationship between the US and Venezuela's current government might test Trump's constant assertions that he has the power to force military intervention in foreign nations. For months, Trump has played with the idea of invading Venezuela, saying in August of 2017 that the US has "many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option, if necessary." According to the Guardian, the day before he made those comments, Trump took his top officials by surprise by asking why the US could not intervene to remove Maduro from power on the grounds that Venezuela's political unraveling posed a threat to the region. "We’re all over the world and we have troops all over the world in places that are very, very far away, Venezuela is not very far away and the people are suffering and dying," Trump reportedly said at the time. In August 2018, Trump met with Rubio — a close adviser to his when it comes to Latin American policy — to discuss Venezuela. Of the meeting, Rubio said he believed there was a "very strong" argument that "Venezuela and the Maduro regime have become a threat to the region and to the United States." "I believe that the armed forces of the United States are only used in the case of a threat to national security," he said. Read more: Officials keep talking about intervening in Venezuela, and it's drawing an ominous comparison After Tuesday's meeting, Rubio left the room hopeful that Trump will now take a step further to intervene in Venezuela's uprising. "We encouraged the president today to follow through with what he’s already declared, which is that Maduro is illegitimate," Rubio said. "The next logical step is to recognize the president of the National Assembly as the rightful president." A US military intervention in Venezuela, led by the Trump Administration, would come at a time when South America is shifting to the right and support for Maduro's socialist regime runs low. Venezuela's dire economic situation has pushed many of its citizens to bordering countries whose governments are being pressured to take action. According to Axios, Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil's new right-wing president who has drawn plenty of comparisons to Trump, said Tuesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos that his election proves that "left-wing ideology will not prevail in the region." Similarly, Paraguayan President Mario Abdo Benítez said "anything that will help liberate Venezuela has our support,” including recognizing Guaidó as president. But, up until last summer, experts weren't so sure that a military intervention would solve anything. Last September, Shannon O'Neil, a senior fellow for Latin American Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said though government repression and extreme poverty in Venezuela warrant a push for political change, "US military intervention is not the way to do it." "Venezuela isn't Grenada or Panama, the two Latin American countries invaded by the US during the closing days of the Cold War," she said.<doc-sep>By declaring himself Venezuela’s president on Wednesday, Juan Guaidó has brought Venezuela to the edge of catastrophe. The hitherto unknown opposition leader’s actions, which appear to be closely coordinated with if not directed by the US, have set in motion a perilous chain of events. The US recognized Guaidó as president minutes after his declaration. A number of Latin American nations, most with conservative governments backed by the US, have also done so. The growing list includes Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica, and Paraguay. Canada and the Organization of American States have also recognized Guaidó. The European Union has reportedly considered such a step, but for now has instead issued a call for new elections. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has responded to these actions by breaking relations with the US and ordering US diplomats to leave the country within 72 hours. Guaidó, in turn, told US and other diplomats to stay, a message also put forward by Republican US senator Marco Rubio, a leading opponent of Maduro. The Trump administration is ignoring Maduro’s order, which a senior official called “meaningless.” Another senior Trump official has declared, “All options are on the table,” reiterating a message Trump himself has put forward since 2017. What happens next is anyone’s guess. But a US invasion feels like a real possibility. This course of action must be firmly rejected. This is not because Maduro deserves anyone’s support or sympathy. It is because of the untold suffering and damage US military intervention would bring to Venezuela and the region, and the vanishingly small likelihood such action could bring the change Venezuela needs. Venezuela does, indeed, need change. The economic crisis ravaging the country since 2013 shows no sign of abating and has grown worse in the last 18 months. Severe shortages of food, medicine, and basic goods, alongside punishing hyperinflation, have driven an estimated three million Venezuelans to leave the country in recent years. The government has reacted by governing in an increasingly authoritarian manner. The case against Maduro is easy to make. Yet it must be recognized that Venezuela’s crisis is not solely Maduro’s doing. The US government and opposition also share responsibility. The US has acknowledged that its sanctions could harm Venezuelans, with the following appearing in a November 2018 Congressional Research Service report: Although stronger economic sanctions could influence the Venezuelan government’s behavior, they also could have negative effects and unintended consequences. Analysts are concerned that stronger sanctions could exacerbate Venezuela’s difficult humanitarian situation, which has been marked by shortages of food and medicines, increased poverty, and mass migration. Many Venezuelan civil society groups oppose sanctions that could worsen humanitarian conditions. There is little doubt sanctions have worsened humanitarian conditions. The main reason is that harsher sanctions imposed in mid-2017 severely curtailed Venezuela’s ability to incur debt, and in so doing decimated Venezuelan oil production. This has lessened the public resources available to an increasingly desperate population. Far from being an accidental side effect, this seems to be one of the intents of US policy: make Venezuelans so desperate that they turn against Maduro. The inhumanity of such a policy is clear. The opposition bears a share of responsibility for the crisis for two reasons. One is the direct and indirect damage wrought by episodes of violent protest, such as occurred in 2014 and 2017, with full-throated encouragement by the US. In addition to property damaged and lives lost, many at the hands of opposition forces (with the government also responsible for many deaths), opposition violence fed a climate of fear and polarization, inhibiting the prospects for economic reform and government-opposition dialogue. The opposition also deserves criticism for its inability to establish more effective links to Venezuela’s working classes. While historically strongly supportive of Chavismo, the working classes – comprised largely of formal and informal workers, the unemployed or domestically employed poor – have suffered tremendously in the current crisis. This suffering has led to repeated instances of popular protest directed against the Maduro administration. The opposition has been unable to effectively connect with these protests for several reasons, foremost amongst them being its inability to articulate a positive program that effectively addresses everyday popular-sector concerns (e.g. declining livability). The working classes are also wary of the opposition’s history of violence and close ties to the US. To overcome the severe challenges it faces Venezuela needs a broad-based, peaceful opposition that effectively welds together legitimate political demands (eg for free and fair elections and meaningful government-opposition dialogue) and pressing social and economic demands, for access to food, medicine, and basic services. Guaidó’s and the US’ reckless adventurism have made this scenario far less likely, while dramatically increasing the risk of catastrophe and civil war. Such adventurism must be rejected.<doc-sep>
President Donald Trump once openly considered a “military option” to oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — and now that the US has officially called on Maduro to step down amid massive protests against his rule, Trump says that option is back on the table. But according to a former top US military official, it probably shouldn’t be. The Pentagon’s former top official in charge of overseeing South American operations says there is no “good reason” for the US military to intervene in Venezuela right now. The country is currently in the grip of a potentially explosive political standoff between two men who both claim to be the legitimate president of Venezuela: Maduro, who was reelected president in May 2018; and opposition leader Juan Guaidó. Guaidó claims the 2018 election was rigged and that he, as the head of the National Assembly (the country’s legislative body), is now the rightful president according to the country’s constitution. On Wednesday, Trump officially recognized Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president and called Maduro’s claim to the presidency “illegitimate.” But Maduro has responded with defiance and has so far shown no sign of stepping down anytime soon. That led reporters soon afterward to ask Trump if he might send US troops into Venezuela to remove Maduro from power. “We’re not considering anything,” Trump responded, “but all options are on the table.” But retired Air Force Gen. Douglas Fraser, who from June 2009 to November 2012 led US Southern Command — the part of the Defense Department responsible for overseeing Central and South America and the Caribbean — told me that US military intervention is the wrong course of action right now. “I don’t see a good reason for the military to be employed in this situation,” he said. Here’s why he thinks that, and why the Trump administration should prioritize other options instead. Why a military option isn’t a good idea right now Maduro still has control and the backing of major institutions in his country — including the military. On Thursday, Venezuela’s armed forces said they support their Maduro and will stop any coup attempts against him. That means that any US military action aimed at toppling Maduro would likely be met with stiff resistance from the 515,000-strong Venezuelan military. What’s more, even if the US military did succeed in toppling Maduro, the country would almost certainly be in a much worse state after even the most limited war — and Venezuela is already suffering from a dire humanitarian catastrophe caused by an economic collapse over the past several years. That could pressure the US military to stay in the country long enough to stabilize it — potentially leading to yet another open-ended US military commitment abroad. (See: the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan.) Instead, Fraser said, the US would be better off working with regional allies and partners to alleviate some of the suffering in and around Venezuela. Most of the country lives in poverty and lacks access to even the most basic things needed for survival. That has led millions to flee to Colombia and other nearby countries to escape the misery. Fraser did acknowledge that the US military should still look into what it would take to invade Venezuela just in case Trump does call for such a plan. “It might be worthwhile to just understand what the implications and requirements would be,” he told me. “That’s only prudent planning in case the president decides that’s an option he wants.” But he doesn’t think Trump should choose that option anytime soon. “I don’t see the benefit of a direct military engagement,” he told me. So for now, perhaps Trump should take that option off the table.