Let Venezuela Decide Its Own Destiny

Townhall.com ^ | May 3, 2019 | Pat Buchanan

[Kaslin]

"Who would be free themselves must strike the blow...

"By their right arms the conquest must be wrought."

So wrote Lord Byron of Greece's war of independence against the Turks, though the famed British poet would ignore his own counsel and die just days after arriving in Greece to join the struggle.

Yet Byron's advice is the wise course for the United States, and for the people of Venezuela who seek to free their country of the grip of the incompetent and dictatorial regime of Nicolas Maduro.

Let the Venezuelans decide their own destiny, as did we.

As of today, Caracas seems to be in something of a standoff.

Opposition leader Juan Guaido, recognized by the U.S. and 50 other nations as president, has failed to persuade the army to abandon Maduro.

Yet he can still muster larger crowds in the streets of Caracas to demand the ouster of Maduro than Maduro can call out to stand by his regime.

Tuesday and Wednesday, Guaido announced that the regime's final hour was at hand. But by midweek, the army's leaders, including the minister of defense, still stood with Maduro.

Guaido's opportunity seems to have passed by, at least for the moment. Maduro remains in power, though his generals, weighing the odds, have apparently been negotiating in secret with Guaido.

The Trump administration has backed Guaido, only to see him fail twice now at taking power.

The White House backed the plan in February to breach Venezuela's borders with truckloads of food and medicine, counting on the army not to use force to block the trucks.

Vice President Mike Pence traveled to the border.

But Guaido and the Americans miscalculated. The army stood by Maduro. The trucks were kept out.

This week, when Guaido called out the crowds again to bring the strongman down, the White House went all in. President Donald Trump, Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John Bolton all tweeted support for the uprising.

But by Thursday, it was again clear that no matter what Washington had been told and anticipated, the army remained loyal to Maduro.

Frustrated, exasperated, appearing at once bellicose and impotent, Washington has now begun to bluster about military intervention.

"All options are on the table," says Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford. Presumably that includes the 82nd Airborne.

"While a peaceful solution is desirable, military action is possible," said Pompeo. "If that's what required, that's what the United States will do."

"All options are open," says Bolton. "We want a peaceful transfer of power. But we are not going to see Guaido mistreated by this regime."

Clearly, Juan Guaido is our man in Caracas.

Bolton also had strong words for Vladimir Putin: "(T)his is our hemisphere. It's not where the Russians should be interfering. This was a mistake on their part."

"The brutal repression of the Venezuelan people must end, and it must end soon," said Trump. "People are starving. They have no food; they have no water. And this was once one of the wealthiest countries in the world."

Yet Trump is reportedly reluctant to intervene. Let us hope that his anti-interventionist impulses guide his decisions. Venezuela's future is not ours to decide.

This civil conflict is not our war. We have not been attacked. Not only is there no justification for U.S. military intervention, but also any arrival of U.S. troops on Venezuelan soil could turn into yet another 21st-century strategic debacle.

There could be again Americans killing and dying in a country where no vital interest was imperiled, no matter how obnoxious the regime.

There is no Tiananmen Square slaughter, no massive human rights violations going on in Venezuela to justify military intervention. Indeed, there appears to be a conscious effort on the part of Maduro to minimize casualties and bloodshed, and the consequences they could bring.

Troops are not firing indiscriminately on protestors, though rock-throwers in the streets are provoking the soldiers. Planeloads of Russian or Cuban troops are not pouring into the country.

U.S. intervention in a nation of 30 million people, with an army of scores of thousands of troops, would enable Maduro to cast himself in the role of martyr of Yankee imperialism.

Finally, time is on our side, not Maduro's.

The Venezuelan economy, one of the richest in the hemisphere owing to the world's largest oil resources, is now in shambles. Some 3 million people, 1 in every 10 Venezuelans, have fled the disaster that Maduro and his mentor Hugo Chavez created.

The currency is sinking to Weimar levels. Oil exports are falling. Shortages of food and medicine are spreading. Power blackouts have been reported. It is difficult to foresee any turnaround the Maduro regime can execute to revive the economy or prevent the continued exodus of its people. Most of the nations of Latin America are with us and against Maduro.

Venezuela's situation is not sustainable. Let the fate of the Marxist Socialist regime of Nicolas Maduro be decided by the people of Venezuela.

[Biggirl]

It is up to them.

[Does so]

Threatening to Blockage Cuba announced...

[rrrod]

All streams have been cut...phone service is out. I have a friend on the bridge..Colombia side but he can’t call. I expect Maduro/Cubans/Russians are planning to go full force against the protesters.

[Flag_This]

"Let the Venezuelans decide their own destiny, as did we."

Except for that help from France... and Spain.

[Lurker]

While I agree with Pat on this he’s wrong here:

“Planeloads of Russian or Cuban troops are not pouring into the country.”

There are about 10,000 or so Cubans already there. Getting them out quickly will require some real logistical magic.

The only US intervention I would support is air dropping cases of AK 47 rifles and tins of ammunition into anti-Maduro areas of Venezuela. We must have several thousand we captured in Iraq laying around somewhere.

Give the opposition some teeth and then sit back and let them sort things out for themselves.

L

[Socon-Econ]

Buchannan takes non-inteventionism to extremes. How can “Venezuelans” decide their own destiny when outsiders are making sure that the communists have all the guns? And what’s to stop the communists from making sure that their opponents never get any weapons from the USA — by installing hidden nuclear missiles aimed our way and threatening to take out New York if they start to lose?

[rjsimmon]

Except for that help from France... and Spain.

Who did not lend military aid until we had proven our ability to win several battles against Britain.

[Gen.Blather]

“Except for that help from France... and Spain. “

I thought about that, but France and Spain were carrying on a proxy war. We have no proxy war going on. True we have some non-friends, Russia, China and Cuba, involved. But I agree with Trump in that we should not be engaging in a foreign war, proxy or otherwise.

On the other hand, this is an opportunity to strengthen relations with other potential allies in the region by supporting them. It is their back yard. Let them sort out the problem with the neighbors. And, yes, we don’t hear about it, but the Venezuelan refugees are putting a huge strain on the neighbors.

[Beagle8U]

Good ole Pat, he’d just let slaves decide their own future, if they don’t want to be slaves anymore they only have to say so.

That treed racoon has the choice of coming down the tree and whipping all them dogs or waiting for the hunter to arrive, it’s totally up to him.

[Home-of-the-lazy-dog]

If only the Venezuelans had some way to fight off the tyranny that they voted in! I say, we should get our affairs in order first. Root out the deep state while at the same time building the wall along the entire southern U.S. border, and then going about finding all of the illegals and sending them packing.

The money we’ll save in the long run will be tremendous! It will more than finance any new interventions into countries that were stupid enough to vote leftist, socialist, Marxist, communist systems and then willingly giving up their guns.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

[Robert DeLong]

The U.S. did the majority of the heavy lifting, however, it is disingenuous to state we did it on our own. Somehow we need to send in arms and munition at the very least. Actual military intervention should be the last resort if a resort at all. In addition we need several Latin American countries to join us in aiding the Venezuelans in their quest to throw off the yoke of Marxism/communism.

[frog in a pot]

True we have some non-friends, Russia, China and Cuba, involved.

Perhaps I miss your point; are you suggesting those "non-friends" are passive as opposed to presenting a threat? History records that CR&C are some rough actors who would consider the world a better place without the USA

It is their back yard. Let them sort out the problem with the neighbors.

That is true, however, it most certainly is our back yard as well. How should we feel if a drug cartel set up shop across the street from our house and Law Enforcement was indifferent or incapable of dealing with the issue?

In a global strategic sense, where does our border really end, the edge of our front lawn?

[nathanbedford]

I have often praised Pat Buchanan as one of the most insightful and cogent opinion writers operating today. Because I hold him in high regard I think it is necessary to examine his exposition and evaluate each portion of his exhortation not to intervene in Venezuela. It is important not to work backwards from a predilection either to invade or to refrain from invading.

Let the Venezuelans decide their own destiny, as did we.

But did we decide our own destiny? I seem to recall that we sent Franklin, Adams, Jay and Jefferson off to France to enlist their aid which was ultimately delivered by France without whose Navy we would not have won at the time and place we did.

But by Thursday, it was again clear that no matter what Washington had been told and anticipated, the army remained loyal to Maduro.

But Guaido and the Americans miscalculated. The army stood by Maduro. The trucks were kept out.

If so, this represents a very dangerous shortfall in our intelligence. We do not know for sure what Washington had been told, we do not know if Washington was telling us the truth, but assuming the above, this intelligence misstep is shocking because it is reminiscent of our fatal lack of intelligence in Vietnam, our disastrous intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, our equally disastrous ignorance of the Chinese intentions of crossing the Yalu River into Korea, the strike against Pearl Harbor and on and on. It tells us that we cannot be sure that our intelligence is adequate to making the decision whether to intervene or not intervene. The cost of such ignorance can be decisive, the consequences fatal.

There could be again Americans killing and dying in a country where no vital interest was imperiled.

When we considered intervening into Iraq we thought in terms of the first Gulf War, in other words, a quick in and out with indisputable victory and only minimal casualties. On invading Venezuela, we must consider whether it is more like Iraq, Mogadishu, Lebanon, or Vietnam than the First Gulf War, Japan, Germany, Granada or Panama.

… Where no vital interest was imperiled…

Venezuela is not a faraway country like Afghanistan or Iraq, it is not a country of deserts and barren mountains like Afghanistan, it is not a nation of warlords and seven century Islamists, it is rather modern, rather well educated, with immense oil potential located on a land bridge to America and very, very close across the water.

Our interest in Latin America has been acknowledged since the Monroe doctrine under President Madison in the early 19th century (although actually initiated and maintained by the British Navy) because of its proximity to the United States and because European intrigues would constitute real danger to the United States. We have already seen in Venezuela the introduction of Armed Forces by Russia, China, and especially Cuba. Did we not see the like under Castro in Cuba?

Bolton also had strong words for Vladimir Putin: "(T)his is our hemisphere. It's not where the Russians should be interfering. This was a mistake on their part."

If we had a vital enough interest in our situation with Cuba when the Russians were installing nuclear tipped missiles there, an interest vital enough to go to the very brink of nuclear war, why do we not have a similar vital interest in Venezuela when there are already reports, albeit unconfirmed, that the Russians have placed missiles in Venezuela? The Venezuelan relationship with Iran has been widely reported and it is not unlikely that they would install Missiles tipped with atomic weapons obtained from Russia, China, Pakistan or North Korea.

This civil conflict is not our war. We have not been attacked. Not only is there no justification for U.S. military intervention

Clearly we have not been attacked but is this a actually a Civil War now? Does not the arrival of 20,000 Cuban soldiers and Russian and Chinese elements change all that? Does that not provide adequate "justification" for military intervention?

Also any arrival of U.S. troops on Venezuelan soil could turn into yet another 21st-century strategic debacle.

That danger is certainly real, we should have learned that lesson in Vietnam, but we did not, did we learn it in Iraq? But turn the coin over, would it not be a greater 21st-century debacle if Venezuela becomes another Cuba, a launching pad for mischief throughout the entire hemisphere, a provocateur, an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the Chinese, Russians or Iranians? Would another Cuban missile crisis gone wrong be something akin to "another 21st-century strategic debacle"?

These reactions to Buchanan's observations are not set forth to drive a conclusion and certainly not set forth to work backward from a preferred conclusion, as is often the case on these threads, the purpose is to help sort out our thinking.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

They voted for Hugo.
Now, enjoy !

[Buckeye McFrog]

Then it’s going to decide to remain Socialist.

Because the bulk of the people are poor and ill-educated. And they still worship at the shrine of Hugo Chavez. And his successors have all the guns.

This truly is a new Cuba situation here.

[Savage Beast]

It’s true that people generally get the kind of government they deserve, and vice versa, and George Bush’s “nation building” in Iraq should have taught Americans not to try to force a republican government on people who don’t want it—(and not to elect any more RINOs)—but it is definitely not in the interest of the USA to have a collapsed Venezuela, infiltrated by Russia, China, and no telling who else, in the Western Hemisphere.

[Gen.Blather]

“In a global strategic sense, where does our border really end, the edge of our front lawn? “
You raise a lot of good points and there are arguments on all sides of the many issues. I think that the American taxpayer is tired of endless wars with no apparent victory. Our “allies” behave like 25 year olds still depending on dad’s money while they spend their own on pot and iPhones. I am for kicking them out of the house and making them live on their own. Treat them, the allies, like adults and they will have to act like adults and deal with their own issues.

I especially agree with you on the border, but if we can’t even throw out obvious invaders at the actual, physical border I don’t know what we can do thousands of miles from it. (For what it’s worth, I think the Democrats have killed their chances with, among other issues, doing away with said border.)

[Buttons12]

“a country where no vital interest was imperiled”

I’m no expert but this doesn’t square with what I know of Pat Buchanan.

If we don’t get involved (in some respect), Russia and China get to put down roots in an oil-rich country in this hemisphere, unopposed. Is that not contrary to our vital interests?

Yes of course the Venezuelan people must “self-determine.” That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take sides. Particularly when Russia and China don’t give a fig about self-determination.

[bgill]

It is up to them.

And not us.