A Dangerous Game in Venezuela: Trump, Intimidation, and a Eroding Military
The current US posture towards Venezuela presents Donald Trump with a precarious dilemma. the limited scale of the military build-up rules out a full-scale land invasion, leaving him caught between the risks of insufficient planning and the political fallout of appearing to overreact. This has seemingly led Trump to pursue a strategy of intimidation aimed at forcing the removal of President Nicolás Maduro. While these maneuvers may appear largely performative, their implications are undeniably real.
The recent declaration of a no-fly zone, delivered via social media rather than through official Pentagon channels, exemplifies this approach.Though lacking concrete operational backing – as trump himself later downplayed with a dismissive “Don’t read anything into it” – the declaration has already had a chilling effect, noticeably reducing air traffic within Venezuelan airspace.
historically, US regime change operations, of which there have been many – especially in the Western Hemisphere and Central America – have rarely involved large-scale invasions. The disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 highlighted the dangers of relying on uncertain local support. The 1989-90 intervention in Panama, while swift, benefited from the pre-existing presence of US troops and the relatively small size of the country. Venezuela, with its 30 million citizens and challenging jungle terrain, presents a far more formidable undertaking.
Trump’s options are narrowing. A negotiated departure for Maduro – potentially secured through a considerable financial incentive, a guarantee of safe exile, and legal immunity for himself and his associates – remains a slim possibility for a positive outcome. However, should Maduro remain defiant, Trump will face notable difficulty in backing down from his increasingly assertive stance, particularly given his inclination towards low-cost military solutions.
This situation is compounded by a worrying trend within the governance. Trump’s appointment of Pete Hegseth, described as his “secretary of war,” signals a purposeful dismantling of the Pentagon’s customary safeguards. Concerns have focused on reports of Hegseth authorizing the destruction of suspected Venezuelan drug-smuggling vessels with a directive to “kill everybody,” a potentially illegal order given the lack of clear evidence identifying occupants as legitimate combatants. While ancient precedent suggests little accountability for such actions – even the My Lai massacre resulted in only a brief period of house arrest for the commanding officer - the more significant damage lies in the erosion of military professionalism.
Hegseth’s career has been built on criticizing what he perceives as overly cautious rules of engagement, even lecturing senior military leaders on the need for greater “masculinity.” Trump and Hegseth have systematically replaced key military figures with loyalists, sidelining or forcing into retirement those who express dissent.Legal advisors have been purged, and the administration’s disregard for the military’s hard-won diversity is further damaging morale and undermining the esprit de corps painstakingly built over decades. Simply removing Hegseth would not repair this damage.
the consequences for US military effectiveness are substantial. More immediately concerning is the growing disconnect between the civilian leadership and the senior military brass, who perceive a message that adherence to the law is a sign of weakness. This stands in stark contrast to the approach of Dwight Eisenhower,who understood the critical importance of meticulous planning,even if the plans themselves proved ultimately irrelevant. Should Trump pursue regime change in Venezuela, it will be based on the planning – and likely the provocative messaging – of Pete Hegseth, prioritizing impactful rhetoric over strategic foresight.
