I agree with SGman that Panama was fundamentally different in many ways. I’ve listed those elsewhere, so I’ll just say here that Panama was also successful regime change, unlike Venezuela.
The Maduro raid was a spectacular tactical success, but so far it’s been a strategic failure. The regime is still intact and world (and domestic) opinion is mostly against Trump. If he wants regime change, we are going to have to keep making increasingly unpopular strikes and probably occupy the country. Trump’s open-ended occupation won’t be popular either at home or abroad. His threats to other countries are going to encourage them to develop security guarantees with China for their own protection.
I think there’s a non-zero chance that he even takes the W for capturing Maduro and leaves the regime intact. I have not seen any evidence that a broader strategy is being implemented beyond hoping that the regime plays ball.
I never wrote in defense of the action, other than it's likely legal since Panama was legal. Many of the defenses Noriega claimed are being claimed by Maduro. He says he was kidnapped and that he is a prisoner of war. The regime, a continuation of Chavez and his disastrous policies, is not popular in Venezuela. My guess is, without much military "push" from the U.S., it will fall and Venezuela will have its people's will. This could also domino into Cuba, which seems to be a focus point. I don't see other South American states running into the arms of China. China cannot project its power, only its economic influence, against the U.S. in our hemisphere.
I think strongman tactics work, but not in the long run, and not in a moral sense. Remember, Trump's bar for nations like Venezuela are to make the people better off than they were--a very low bar. Hated here, Trump could be loved in many other places.
Some important points about Panama and Noriega: Panama's government declared a state of war against the US in December 1989; US personnel has been attacked with one killed; and Congress has previously passed resolutions seeking Noriega's removal (though not explicitly authorizing military force).
Just before, from what I can find. There was an attempted coup to remove Noriega from power; on Dec 15 Panama declared a state of war; and Just Cause started on Dec 20.
This is a bit semantic, but the rubber stamp legislature in Panama at the time did declare that the US had initiated a state of war on Panama, as opposed to declaring war on the United States, prior to the full invasion (because how would a badly armed nation of 2.5m ever be able to win a war against the US?) Either way, Bush did cite it as part of his justification for Operation Just Cause.
I was there for the whole thing. I have some great photos.
Indeed, and the argument is likely correct that the US sanctions and the like constituted as such. However, the declaration and the attacks on US military personnel were likely enough to allow for legal use of the military against Panama/Noriega.
But still: from a timing perspective, the declaration occurred prior to the launch of Operation Just Cause (Dec 20) and the ordering of the operation (Dec 16).
Interesting read Steve and one article i read before this by Adam Tooze was even more fascinating. His detailed analysis of the country's oil ownership/taxation adds to the reasoning behind what just happened this weekend.
Facts are always good even if they are not good news. The article makes one supposition based on facts. Only one Trump slur - pretty good for someone at Columbia.
The unspoken goal in snatching Maduro was to diminish the growing presence and influence of China, Russia and Iran in the area. This alone justifies Trump’s actions.
I think that is likely to backfire. With Trump threatening numerous other countries (as well as imposing trade restrictions), he is practically pushing our neighbors into China’s orbit for both protection guarantees as well as economic reasons.
We are going to have to disagree on this one.
I agree with SGman that Panama was fundamentally different in many ways. I’ve listed those elsewhere, so I’ll just say here that Panama was also successful regime change, unlike Venezuela.
The Maduro raid was a spectacular tactical success, but so far it’s been a strategic failure. The regime is still intact and world (and domestic) opinion is mostly against Trump. If he wants regime change, we are going to have to keep making increasingly unpopular strikes and probably occupy the country. Trump’s open-ended occupation won’t be popular either at home or abroad. His threats to other countries are going to encourage them to develop security guarantees with China for their own protection.
I think there’s a non-zero chance that he even takes the W for capturing Maduro and leaves the regime intact. I have not seen any evidence that a broader strategy is being implemented beyond hoping that the regime plays ball.
I never wrote in defense of the action, other than it's likely legal since Panama was legal. Many of the defenses Noriega claimed are being claimed by Maduro. He says he was kidnapped and that he is a prisoner of war. The regime, a continuation of Chavez and his disastrous policies, is not popular in Venezuela. My guess is, without much military "push" from the U.S., it will fall and Venezuela will have its people's will. This could also domino into Cuba, which seems to be a focus point. I don't see other South American states running into the arms of China. China cannot project its power, only its economic influence, against the U.S. in our hemisphere.
I think strongman tactics work, but not in the long run, and not in a moral sense. Remember, Trump's bar for nations like Venezuela are to make the people better off than they were--a very low bar. Hated here, Trump could be loved in many other places.
Some important points about Panama and Noriega: Panama's government declared a state of war against the US in December 1989; US personnel has been attacked with one killed; and Congress has previously passed resolutions seeking Noriega's removal (though not explicitly authorizing military force).
Former GOP Rep Justin Amash has a good explanation of POTUS's legal power to utilize military force under the War Powers Resolution Act at https://x.com/justinamash/status/1994933177224147206.
I believe that state of war was declared after we began Operation Just Cause.
Just before, from what I can find. There was an attempted coup to remove Noriega from power; on Dec 15 Panama declared a state of war; and Just Cause started on Dec 20.
This is a bit semantic, but the rubber stamp legislature in Panama at the time did declare that the US had initiated a state of war on Panama, as opposed to declaring war on the United States, prior to the full invasion (because how would a badly armed nation of 2.5m ever be able to win a war against the US?) Either way, Bush did cite it as part of his justification for Operation Just Cause.
I was there for the whole thing. I have some great photos.
Indeed, and the argument is likely correct that the US sanctions and the like constituted as such. However, the declaration and the attacks on US military personnel were likely enough to allow for legal use of the military against Panama/Noriega.
But still: from a timing perspective, the declaration occurred prior to the launch of Operation Just Cause (Dec 20) and the ordering of the operation (Dec 16).
Interesting read Steve and one article i read before this by Adam Tooze was even more fascinating. His detailed analysis of the country's oil ownership/taxation adds to the reasoning behind what just happened this weekend.
You can read it here, well worth the time. Usually Adam's writings are too analytical for me, this one is easy to read and digest: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-423-some-topical-material?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=477xf&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Facts are always good even if they are not good news. The article makes one supposition based on facts. Only one Trump slur - pretty good for someone at Columbia.
The unspoken goal in snatching Maduro was to diminish the growing presence and influence of China, Russia and Iran in the area. This alone justifies Trump’s actions.
I think that is likely to backfire. With Trump threatening numerous other countries (as well as imposing trade restrictions), he is practically pushing our neighbors into China’s orbit for both protection guarantees as well as economic reasons.