More than two decades ago, on January 24, 2004, I landed in Baghdad as a legal advisor, assigned an office in what was then known as the Green Zone. It was raining and cold, and my duffle bag was thrown into a puddle off the C-130 aircraft that had just done a corkscrew dive to reach the runway without risk of ground fire. Young American soldiers greeted me, as we piled into a vehicle, sped out of the airport complex and then along a road called the “Highway of Death” due to car bombs and snipers along the route.
More than two decades ago, on January 24, 2004, I landed in Baghdad as a legal adviser, assigned an office in what was then known as the Green Zone. It was raining and cold, and my duffle bag was thrown into a puddle off the C-130 aircraft that had just done a corkscrew dive to reach the runway without risk of ground fire. Young American soldiers greeted me as we piled into a vehicle, sped out of the airport complex and then along a road called the “Highway of Death” due to car bombs and snipers.
What has our country gotten itself into?
That was my first thought on that harrowing ride, and over the course of a year in the country and then across subsequent presidential administrations, I often counseled prudence and caution when setting American foreign policy objectives. That is especially the case when it comes to the use of military power, the application of which must be tied to clear, articulated and achievable aims.
You might think thecurrent situation in Venezuela– where the US has now deployed 15% of its naval power and is conducting ground exercises nearby – triggers a cautionary tale to stop before our country once again finds itself in a situation that we do not fully understand with uncertain consequences.
Not so fast.
The situation in Venezuela today has little comparison to Iraq and far more resembles Panama 35 years ago, before the US military operation to remove a dictator and install an elected government that enjoyed vast support from the population there. That mission was a success, and Panama today is a functioning democracy, friendly to the US, albeit not without problems from crime to corruption.
Is it possible that we are so paralyzed by the Iraq (and Afghanistan) experience, to miss an opportunity to improve the lives of Venezuelans and stability in our own hemisphere along the lines of Panama?
On December 20, 1989, President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation to define the rationale behind the mission he had just ordered into Panama. He explained that Panama was led by “an indicted drug trafficker,” Manuel Noriega, who would soon “be brought to justice” in the US. Bush added that Noriega annulled democratic elections, and that the winners of those elections would soon take power in Panama City likely with broad support. Noriega’s regime also threatened and harmed Americans, including the recent death of an American soldier, shot by Noriega’s security services.
Finally, Bush discussed the strategic importance of the Panama Canal, and Washington’s commitment to existing treaties that Noriega was unlikely to honor.
Against that backdrop, Bush explained the goals of the mission: “To safeguard the lives of Americans, to defend democracy in Panama, to combat drug trafficking, and to protect the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty.”
Two weeks later, Noriega was in US custody, the elected opposition government took power, and US forces began to leave the country.
I recently spoke with a former US military counterpart who took part in this operation, parachuting into Panama before Bush made that address. “Out of our many military ventures since Korea,” he told me, “Panama must be considered one of our most successful. To go there now is to see a very prosperous Democratic country.”
Now, let’s look at Venezuela –
The country is run by Nicolas Maduro, who like Noriega faces criminal indictments in US courts. The charges against Maduro are more extensive. His 2020 indictment in New York lists counts of narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and corruption. He is also accused of heading the trafficking organization “Cartel de los Soles,” which the State Department just branded a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Washington has offered a $50 million reward for anyone that can help bring Maduro into US custody.
Like Noriega, Maduro has also invalidated successive elections and violently suppressed democratic movements inside his country. The US and most of its Western allies recognize the opposition led by Maria Corina Machado as Venezuela’s legitimate government. Opposition parties according to independent observers received 70% of the national vote in Venezuela’s presidential elections in 2024, which Maduro claims to have won.
Finally, Maduro, like Noriega, has threatened and harmed American citizens, as well as regional peace and security. In recent years, like his allies in Iran, Maduro has effectively held Americans as hostages for diplomatic maneuvering with the US. These hostages include an American sailor vacationing in Venezuela, longtime American residents of the country, and US-based executives of Citgo, the US subsidiary of Venezuela’s state oil company.
In 2023, Maduro threatened to invade neighboring Guyana, an American ally, and today claims sovereignty over two-thirds of Guyana, justifying the claim – much like Putin over eastern Ukraine – based on false history and a staged referendum.
If Maduro is replaced in Caracas, there is no guarantee that local authorities throughout the country would work with the new government, opening the prospect for civil wars and a violent competition for power and resources. Maduro claims to have recruited a militia in the millions to resist any US-backed operation, and while that claim may be exaggerated, we should presume that drug cartels may seize control in the countryside as opposed to the forces of democracy we might hope or wish to see prevail.
Venezuela is over 10 times larger than Panama, something military planners would likely recommend required a far larger force than the nearly 26,000 personnel deployed in in the 1989 operation.
The geostrategic context is also vastly different. In 1989, the Soviet Union had collapsed with the Berlin Wall coming down six weeks before the US invasion of Panama. America was the undisputed great power in the world, and there was no reason to expect or anticipate other great powers resisting the military operation or making moves of their own in other hemispheres.
Today, Russia and China are aligned with Maduro, and their leaders would likely cite any US operation in Venezuela as further justification to pursue their own hemispheric ambitions, against Ukraine and Taiwan, respectively.
President Donald Trump last weeksaid crypticallythat he had “made up his mind” on a course of action in Venezuela. That followedCNN reportingon multiple high level White House meetings with military commanders on options following the Naval buildup off the coast and exercises conducted by the US Marine Corps across rural and urban areas of Trinidad and Tobago.
Maduro seems to be reading into these moves a possible American intervention, calling up his militias while also appealing for dialogue, even singing John Lennon’s peace anthem “Imagine” at a recent rally.
Adding to the confusion, the administration has not been clear on the aims for what it now calls Operation Southern Spear. The Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, described the mission as one to “defend our homeland, remove narcoterrorism from our hemisphere, and secure our homeland from the drugs that are killing our people.” While there has been no mention in official statements of restoring democracy in Venezuela, or an objective to seek the removal of Maduro as its leader, Trump has declared Maduro’s days “numbered” and the military deployments, including the most advanced carrier strike group in the US arsenal, suggest aims beyond the publicly stated goals of Southern Spear.
To be sure, the removal of Maduro is in the interests of the US and the people of Venezuela. Before the rule of Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, the country was among the most prosperous in South America, whereas today it’s a shambles with per capita income falling by 72 percent, one of the sharpest economic collapses in history. More than three-quarters of the country by reputable polling opposes his rule, and there is an opposition government prepared to take power if given the chance to do so.
The Trump administration despite its saber rattling seems unlikely to pursue regime change militarily, a course of action that would cut against its stated aversion to prolonged military engagements. Nor would I advise them otherwise. The differences with Panama at this stage outweigh the similarities or hope that an operation against Maduro might go as well as Panama over three decades ago.
But the administration should not withdraw the leverage that it has now built up against Maduro and use it to good effect.
Short of a military operation to oust Maduro, the administration can demand that he give up key figures of the drug trafficking networks inside Venezuela, withdraw claims on Guyana, and pledge to hold new elections with international observers, which he would surely lose. To go a step further, the administration might demand his exile, perhaps to Russia, where he can join Bashar al-Asad, the former president of Syria, another dictator who destroyed his own country for the sake of personal power. For any of this to work, the administration would need to secure support from allies, including in South America, something that to date it has been unable or unwilling to do when it comes to its aims in Venezuela.
In any case, before the US embarks on a policy to replace Maduro, whether by military means or otherwise, there should be a congressional debate to weigh pros and cons, something that today also is not happening due to dysfunction in Washington.
The US after two decades of protracted military engagements overseas is rightly wary of any new endeavor that envisions regime change. That caution is warranted, but in Venezuela the case for Maduro’s removal from power are both compelling and draw more parallels to Panama than to Iraq. However, the build-up of military power off its coast can best be used to achieve objectives that in the end do not require its use in the country.