I don't really know what to say at this point.
As far as the legality of what we did, I don't see a problem with it (at least I don't think so). The United States should be able to steamroll some random guy in Grenada or Venezuela if we feel like he's a bad actor. International law and the ICC is a bad joke and shouldn't constrain our behavior. Domestically, the War Powers resolution should allow the executive to do something like this.
The problem is, why are we doing this? And who is "we"? I have never seen convincing evidence that removing Maduro will reduce the flow of drugs into the US, or that it will remove communism from the country. As far as the oil, if Exxon Mobil or whoever is able to drill in Venezuelan oilfields now, that's great for them, but how does it benefit the rest of us? For some reason, I don't think Americans will get anything out of this.
The drug angle is especially stupid because Trump just pardoned another South American head of state (Juan Hernandez) who is on tape wanting to "shove cocaine up the noses of gringos."
The only country that tangibly benefits, at this point, is Israel, given that Venezuela has been a known and acknowledged thorn in their side for years. It's no surprise that the next presidential hopeful Maria Machado will not shut up about how many things she's ready to do for them.
Some people are alleging that China and Russia were establishing a foothold in our backyard with Venezuela. They do indeed supply some oil to China (2-5% of China's supply) but I haven't heard of any other involvement, certainly nothing substantial enough to warrant regime change.
I also have a problem with the example this is setting globally. We are going to charge a foreign head of state with possession of machine guns? So when Germany brings an American citizen up on charges for violating their hate speech laws are we going to pretend we're better than that? Are we still going to pretend that Russia invading Ukraine was unjustified?
If Maduro was repeatedly aggressing on the US and uniting himself with China/Russia, I don't think I have a problem with this. But I just don't see it.
I'm still caught in euphoria of how we did it over why we did it. no forever war, no civilians hurt, a few American injuries but no American deaths, plus the signaling to other countries "fuck around and your next!"
as far as military operations go, this was the best possible outcome.
there's also an interesting precedent set: the United States can wage war against a government, and not the people. historically, a war against a country always involved the people, there was no way around it. defending your country meant getting your house bombed, getting your food and supplies cut off, and even getting enslaved or raped. capitulating was not just about freedom, but also about weighing the pain of war versus the pain of capitulation.
with this military action, the United States demonstrates the suffering of the people from war does not have to be a factor. they will Target you, the head of the regime, and only you if they can.
This will never happen, due to the deep, deep rot within America itself, but there is a utopian timeline where America lives up to its promise and becomes the genuine protector of human freedom and opportunity by beheading regimes that are completely detached from the people they purport to govern.
But perhaps that's just me dreaming from under the thumb of Kier Starmer and his cronies.
it just happened