There are so many reasons that there needs to be a similar military action against the US to rid it of graft and corruption at the highest levels of government. There are a whole host of leaders who have broken international law and an even bigger gang who have broken US law. They need to be removed if the country is to survive.
My dad is a refugee from wwII in his 80s, he glad told me several times in the past year "this is not the same country he first came to"
I was born in Latin America and came to the USA in the late 1980s I know the history of Latin America tangled up with The United States... I know it's very divided social classes and it's difficulties to climb up into a better situation.
I'm sorry to say... I like my dad now, I'm starting to agree with the many people who have accused The United States of so many bullying actions. Meaning using the stick and carrot to get wealth out of Latin America while keeping it down .. no matter if it's a democracy or a dictatorship. Keeping Latin Americans under the thumb of The United States...is really the way of our nation.
Latin America deserves a better neighbor than The United States.
But we are stuck, with our neighbor.
I feel that if nations could move away from the USA they would, just like if you own a home or rent an apartment with a real bad neighbor, one may finally move away... For simply peace.
But where to move?... To a fantasy island somewhere near New Zealand and Australia. Maybe.
Trump has been explicit about seeing "the enemy within" as worse than any foreign foe. He chose a SecDef who has openly ruminated about using the U.S. military for domestic purposes and coopting it for a culture war. Hegseth would probably love to lead a domestic crusade against secular liberalism, aka godless leftism. Trump would love to see the military deployed nationwide against any resistance to his dictatorial power.
At first glance, the idea that the U.S. might be lining up more countries after Venezuela sounds like yet another round of “TDS.” But the uncomfortable truth is that this isn’t coming out of thin air—and it’s more concerning than many people want to admit.
In the aftermath of the Venezuela operation, senior officials haven’t exactly been subtle about suggesting this wasn’t a one-off. President Trump has described the action as part of a broader effort to reassert American dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The rhetoric has a distinctly old-school Monroe Doctrine feel to it—so much so that some analysts are already jokingly calling it the “Don-roe Doctrine,” stretching from Latin America all the way to the Arctic.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been especially explicit about Cuba. In public appearances following the Venezuela operation, he labeled Cuba’s communist leadership a “huge problem” and warned that Havana should be “concerned” about recent events. No one has laid out a war plan, but it’s hard to miss the signal: Cuba is very much on the administration’s radar, particularly given its role in propping up Maduro.
President Trump himself has gone further, floating the idea of military pressure beyond Venezuela. Speaking aboard Air Force One, he said that “something’s going to have to be done” about Mexico if it doesn’t get drug trafficking under control, and even remarked that a military operation in Colombia “sounds good.” Those aren’t offhand comments from a random surrogate—they’re signals that kinetic options are at least being entertained, regardless of whether Congress has weighed in.
And it’s not limited to the Western Hemisphere. Trump has once again revived talk of acquiring Greenland on strategic grounds, prompting sharp pushback from Denmark. While it may sound surreal, it fits a broader pattern: a willingness to use pressure—political, economic, or otherwise—to assert control over strategically important territory.
Taken together, the tone coming out of the White House and State Department after Venezuela suggests that some in the administration see this as the opening move in a much more assertive, intervention-heavy foreign policy. That’s what’s giving critics pause—not just Venezuela itself, but the idea that its playbook could become a template used elsewhere.
Especially with respect to #6 above, when did it become the responsibility of the US government to act as an 'enforcement wing' of US corporations? Was very popular in the late 19th and early 20th century, but our government doesn't force US companies to go invest in other countries monetarily or through physical infrastructure; that is the company's decision. If a country then turns around and expropriates the American company's wealth, that's not a causus belli.
The guy who knocked down the east wing without having actual building plans in place certainly doesn't have a plan for what comes next in Venezuela. For now he'll receive praise from right-wing media and influencers and that will feed his ego for a little while and will keep the spotlight off of the Epstein files.
If he thinks this "worked" once he will absolutely do it again and again there will be no plan for what comes next, lather, rinse, repeat.
The first consideration of any strategist is logistics: How do we transport, support and supply the needed military forces. The second question is, how many troops will I need to accomplish a particular operation. A quick perusal of the potential target states, leads me question Trump's rationality in anything he seems to be proposing. Draw your own conclusions. I believe it's Twenty-fifth Amendment time!
Re: Greenland. As has been pointed out, there are a number of mutual defense agreements already in place between the US, Denmark and its autonomous region Greenland. In fact, our Pituffik Space Force base, formerly Thule Air Force Base, in northwest Greenland, has a footprint the size of Chicago and presently has only a couple of hundred Guardians* stationed there. If we did happen to need more, they would give it to us.
Moreover, Trump;s complaint is that Russian and Chinese ships are sailing near Greenland. How does he proposed to stop that from happening?
He doesn't have to propose something to stop Chinese and Russian ships from being around Greenland because there aren't any there.
On the other hand he might want to worry more about the Caribbean because about a year or so ago there was a Russian sub that spent several weeks undetected in the Caribbean and was only noticed as it left.
As evidence, he claimed that Maduro’s putative re-election last year was “rigged” and “a disgrace, just like my election was a disgrace. 2020 was a disgrace.” In fact, said Trump, Maduro’s sham election “wasn’t a hell of a lot worse than what they [the Democrats] did to us in 2020.”
Trump also claimed that if had not won in 2024, the US would be in the same condition as Venezuela is now. If I'm not mistaken, there is a justification for another self-coup in there.
If the goal had been solely to grab Maduro, the astronomical bill for the mission ($8 million a day for the carrier strike force, aside from the rest of the "armada") wouldn't be close to justifiable.
The attack and a plan to 'run' Venezuela are alarming enough. More so is understanding that this deployment could only be sold to Americans - as representing good value - in terms of being instrumental to a campaign of establishing regional dominance.
There are so many reasons that there needs to be a similar military action against the US to rid it of graft and corruption at the highest levels of government. There are a whole host of leaders who have broken international law and an even bigger gang who have broken US law. They need to be removed if the country is to survive.
My dad is a refugee from wwII in his 80s, he glad told me several times in the past year "this is not the same country he first came to"
I was born in Latin America and came to the USA in the late 1980s I know the history of Latin America tangled up with The United States... I know it's very divided social classes and it's difficulties to climb up into a better situation.
I'm sorry to say... I like my dad now, I'm starting to agree with the many people who have accused The United States of so many bullying actions. Meaning using the stick and carrot to get wealth out of Latin America while keeping it down .. no matter if it's a democracy or a dictatorship. Keeping Latin Americans under the thumb of The United States...is really the way of our nation.
Latin America deserves a better neighbor than The United States.
But we are stuck, with our neighbor.
I feel that if nations could move away from the USA they would, just like if you own a home or rent an apartment with a real bad neighbor, one may finally move away... For simply peace.
But where to move?... To a fantasy island somewhere near New Zealand and Australia. Maybe.
Pobre Mexico, tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de los Estados Unidos. - Porfirio Diaz
Mr. Saletan, I wish we didn't need to know this, but we do. Thanks for spelling it out!
Trump has been explicit about seeing "the enemy within" as worse than any foreign foe. He chose a SecDef who has openly ruminated about using the U.S. military for domestic purposes and coopting it for a culture war. Hegseth would probably love to lead a domestic crusade against secular liberalism, aka godless leftism. Trump would love to see the military deployed nationwide against any resistance to his dictatorial power.
At first glance, the idea that the U.S. might be lining up more countries after Venezuela sounds like yet another round of “TDS.” But the uncomfortable truth is that this isn’t coming out of thin air—and it’s more concerning than many people want to admit.
In the aftermath of the Venezuela operation, senior officials haven’t exactly been subtle about suggesting this wasn’t a one-off. President Trump has described the action as part of a broader effort to reassert American dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The rhetoric has a distinctly old-school Monroe Doctrine feel to it—so much so that some analysts are already jokingly calling it the “Don-roe Doctrine,” stretching from Latin America all the way to the Arctic.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been especially explicit about Cuba. In public appearances following the Venezuela operation, he labeled Cuba’s communist leadership a “huge problem” and warned that Havana should be “concerned” about recent events. No one has laid out a war plan, but it’s hard to miss the signal: Cuba is very much on the administration’s radar, particularly given its role in propping up Maduro.
President Trump himself has gone further, floating the idea of military pressure beyond Venezuela. Speaking aboard Air Force One, he said that “something’s going to have to be done” about Mexico if it doesn’t get drug trafficking under control, and even remarked that a military operation in Colombia “sounds good.” Those aren’t offhand comments from a random surrogate—they’re signals that kinetic options are at least being entertained, regardless of whether Congress has weighed in.
And it’s not limited to the Western Hemisphere. Trump has once again revived talk of acquiring Greenland on strategic grounds, prompting sharp pushback from Denmark. While it may sound surreal, it fits a broader pattern: a willingness to use pressure—political, economic, or otherwise—to assert control over strategically important territory.
Taken together, the tone coming out of the White House and State Department after Venezuela suggests that some in the administration see this as the opening move in a much more assertive, intervention-heavy foreign policy. That’s what’s giving critics pause—not just Venezuela itself, but the idea that its playbook could become a template used elsewhere.
Especially with respect to #6 above, when did it become the responsibility of the US government to act as an 'enforcement wing' of US corporations? Was very popular in the late 19th and early 20th century, but our government doesn't force US companies to go invest in other countries monetarily or through physical infrastructure; that is the company's decision. If a country then turns around and expropriates the American company's wealth, that's not a causus belli.
Hey, are we going to be kicked out of the UN? Is there a reason that we won't be?
The guy who knocked down the east wing without having actual building plans in place certainly doesn't have a plan for what comes next in Venezuela. For now he'll receive praise from right-wing media and influencers and that will feed his ego for a little while and will keep the spotlight off of the Epstein files.
If he thinks this "worked" once he will absolutely do it again and again there will be no plan for what comes next, lather, rinse, repeat.
The first consideration of any strategist is logistics: How do we transport, support and supply the needed military forces. The second question is, how many troops will I need to accomplish a particular operation. A quick perusal of the potential target states, leads me question Trump's rationality in anything he seems to be proposing. Draw your own conclusions. I believe it's Twenty-fifth Amendment time!
The feckless lickspittles in his cabinet are absolutely not going to do that.
Re: Greenland. As has been pointed out, there are a number of mutual defense agreements already in place between the US, Denmark and its autonomous region Greenland. In fact, our Pituffik Space Force base, formerly Thule Air Force Base, in northwest Greenland, has a footprint the size of Chicago and presently has only a couple of hundred Guardians* stationed there. If we did happen to need more, they would give it to us.
Moreover, Trump;s complaint is that Russian and Chinese ships are sailing near Greenland. How does he proposed to stop that from happening?
*Not "Spacemen," dang it...
He doesn't have to propose something to stop Chinese and Russian ships from being around Greenland because there aren't any there.
On the other hand he might want to worry more about the Caribbean because about a year or so ago there was a Russian sub that spent several weeks undetected in the Caribbean and was only noticed as it left.
As evidence, he claimed that Maduro’s putative re-election last year was “rigged” and “a disgrace, just like my election was a disgrace. 2020 was a disgrace.” In fact, said Trump, Maduro’s sham election “wasn’t a hell of a lot worse than what they [the Democrats] did to us in 2020.”
Trump also claimed that if had not won in 2024, the US would be in the same condition as Venezuela is now. If I'm not mistaken, there is a justification for another self-coup in there.
Feels like a REAL GAME of Risk to me.................
God help us.
Excellent (and scary) summary; thank you Will.
Excellent, thanks Will!
If the goal had been solely to grab Maduro, the astronomical bill for the mission ($8 million a day for the carrier strike force, aside from the rest of the "armada") wouldn't be close to justifiable.
The attack and a plan to 'run' Venezuela are alarming enough. More so is understanding that this deployment could only be sold to Americans - as representing good value - in terms of being instrumental to a campaign of establishing regional dominance.
Another insightful piece, thank you!