What the Maduro Arrest Means for America First.

On Saturday, the United States’ Delta Force captured the President of Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro, in a daring raid on the Venezuelan capital of Caracas.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily align with those of The American Postliberal.

On Saturday, the United States’ Delta Force captured the President of Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro, in a daring raid on the Venezuelan capital of Caracas. While our servicemen have again shown the world their professionalism and bravery, the fact of the matter is that the cause in which they were deployed was and is not worth one of their lives. But why is this so?

First of all, definitionally, our country is a republic, from the Latin res publica, literally meaning a thing of the public. Our state thus exists for the benefit of our public and people, for Americans first. Any action contrary to that aim is definitionally contrary to the raison d’être of our government and is not worth the lives of our servicemen.

But why is the action in Venezuela contrary to our interests? Let’s first address the stated rationale and what these actions point towards.

The primary stated rationale of our intervention is the role that Venezuela plays in the drug trade, with it being alleged that Venezuela’s government are “narcoterrorists.” Venezuela indeed is a major country through which the cocaine trade travels, and the drug trade has inflicted severe damage to the American people.

However, Venezuela plays almost no role in the production of Fentanyl (which is made in Mexico), the drug which kills the most Americans, and the cocaine bound for the U.S. is generally made in Colombia and transported through Pacific and Central America.

Additionally, were we to prudentially address the drug issue, how would we do so? Take in point the policy that the Trump administration has prudentially taken towards our Southern border and Mexico, with the goal of stopping the drug trade.

President Trump secured our Southern border, closing a major avenue by which drugs would enter the country. Additionally, the Mexican government has wisely moved its national guard from its interior ministry to its defense one, to facilitate its training by the U.S., so that it might better interdict the drug trade.

A similar U.S. mission to train Venezuelan authorities in drug interdiction, or even limited U.S. anti-drug operations in cooperation with Venezuela, would be worthwhile and in the interests of both nations. However, that is not what we witnessed over the weekend. Instead, we witnessed what can only be definitionally described as regime change.

Capturing the leader of another country, and putting him on trial, is, by its nature, an attempt to change the government of that country. Thus, the question becomes, is regime change (even only a slight one elevating more moderate members of Maduro’s government) in our interests?

Maduro, though an unsavory leader in many respects, was one the United States could work with. When Trump assumed office, he wisely engaged in diplomacy with Venezuela, freeing six American detainees, and working towards a broader detente. Even late into last year, Maduro was ready and willing to engage in talks with our government, demonstrating that he is not as intractably anti-American as has been portrayed.

Additionally, it is unclear whether a leader better than Maduro is likely for Venezuela. It must be noted that Venezuela has never really enjoyed the liberty or free government that we in the United States are accustomed to. Our republic was built on the foundations of a millennium of English common law, as well as by a particular people with particular culture, customs, and inheritance.

Venezuela, as a country, is totally historically and culturally alien to us, and lacking these things cannot be expected to develop a government similar to that which works so well for Americans.

Thus, the most likely outcome of regime change in Caracas is the replacement of one deeply unsavory government with another, even if the latter has slightly different window-dressing. This is not a cause in which American blood and treasure should be spent.

Beyond the point, even were Venezuela to magically adopt an American-style government as a result of U.S.-backed regime change, the blood of our neighbors, friends, and brothers should not be cannon fodder for the political liberation of alien peoples. Our taxes are not paid to provide a bottomless piggy-bank for foreigners to pin their political desire on.

The United States exists for Americans–for both ourselves and our prosperity–not as a tool of foreigners. In this sense, to paraphrase Bismarck, the governance of the whole Venezuela is not worth the bones of a single American Delta Force operator.

There are historical rationales under which the U.S. could kinetically intervene in Latin America, most notably the Monroe Doctrine. But it exists to prevent hostile powers from interfering in our hemisphere, not for us to micromanage the politics of the nations who happen to be located near us. If we were concerned about Maduro’s ties to old world powers, we could have worked with him to lessen these ties.

Even in the absence of action from the U.S., things such as Chinese investment in Venezuela have been decreasing, and it is likely that Maduro would have been amenable towards a deal with the U.S. further decreasing it.

Of course, some people will cast criticism of the Venezuelan operation as disloyalty to Trump. However, this criticism is necessary precisely because of what true loyalty requires.

President Trump is the greatest president of my lifetime and is undoubtedly a patriotic and courageous man. He is someone who has suffered greatly at the hands of his enemies, from the lawfare waged against him, to being wounded by a bullet in Butler Pennsylvania, for his desire to put Americans first.

However, intervening in Venezuela on behalf of the liberal international order does not constitute putting America First. Trump’s love for our country and desire to put our people first obligates us, as Americans, to speak up whenever his advisors steer the ship of state away from that goal.

For this reason, we should be unafraid to point out that regime change in Venezuela is fundamentally contrary to the goals of this administration and of President Trump.

---

If you enjoyed this essay, please consider becoming a patron of our publication! Your enthusiasm and support means a lot to all of us at The American Postliberal — and we promise we’ll work hard for your investment in our project.