By John Q. Hosedrinker 
U.S. military officials are preparing options for strikes within Venezuela against drug traffickers, potentially starting in weeks, motivated by the alleged insufficient efforts of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to stop drug flow. These plans primarily involve drone strikes on drug trafficking groups and labs. The Trump administration has already escalated its military campaign, targeting vessels allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela, and discussions between the U.S. and Venezuela are underway through intermediaries. The U.S. has significantly increased military presence in the region, suggesting the administration is willing to use any means necessary to combat the illegal drug trade and potentially instigate regime change.
Read the original article here
According to official close to the matter, the US is drawing up plans for strikes against drug cartels inside Venezuela which could start in a matter of weeks. The very idea, honestly, sparks immediate questions, doesn’t it? First and foremost, the gut reaction is a resounding, “Isn’t that just…war?” We’re talking about military action, potentially bombing runs and ground operations, inside another country’s sovereign borders. That raises all sorts of legal and ethical red flags, as well as practical concerns about the potential for escalation and unintended consequences.
The potential for such a move to be seen as a brazen violation of international law is significant. It’s the kind of thing that could easily backfire, painting the US in a negative light and further eroding its standing on the global stage. The idea is unsettling, making the concept of “another country” feel very real.
One can’t help but consider how such an action might be perceived, particularly in light of historical events. The phrase “war on drugs,” with all its baggage of failures and unintended consequences, comes readily to mind. History has a habit of repeating itself, and it’s difficult to imagine that this particular campaign wouldn’t echo the same failed efforts. And, as some have already pointed out, wouldn’t this be a blatant act of war?
Of course, there’s the underlying suspicion that there might be more to this than meets the eye. Could the situation be viewed as an attempt to distract from other pressing issues, perhaps even the infamous “Trumpstein files?” The timing, the potential for political gain, these are all factors that cannot be ignored. It’s all too easy to imagine the headlines, the political posturing, the whole charade of justifying military intervention. It’s a sad reality of today’s global politics.
Let’s face it, the “war on drugs” has been, to put it mildly, a failure. Wasting millions of dollars on missiles and air strikes, instead of investing in social programs, is a pattern that needs to be stopped. One can’t help but wonder if this is the start of another “Neverending War on Terror/Drugs” that could erode rights.
Then, there’s the resource angle. Venezuela has a wealth of oil reserves. The cynical view, often whispered, is that this is all about the black gold, a way to control a valuable commodity. Follow the oil, as they say, and you often find the true motivation. The idea of a “special military operation” to secure those resources, no matter how it’s packaged, is a tough pill to swallow. It’s a cynical, albeit plausible, interpretation of the situation.
The mention of “cartels” is also interesting. Are we going to see the rise of a new enemy, one that is conveniently located in a country with significant oil reserves? It’s an easy enough narrative to sell: dangerous cartels operating in a lawless country that threaten US interests. It’s a familiar playbook, one that has been used many times before.
The reference to internal divisions is also very telling. The idea that the US could, in the process of intervening in another nation, become further embroiled in its own internal conflicts, feels tragically inevitable.
The thought of a foreign policy based on machismo, of a leader wanting to “prove” their strength through military action, is worrying. It’s a dangerous game to play, one that could lead to all sorts of unpredictable outcomes. And, as someone mentioned, it raises the question of whether this will trigger any kind of retaliation, and where will it fall?
It’s difficult not to see parallels with past interventions. The idea of a quick in-and-out operation, reminiscent of the Grenada or Panama interventions, feels simplistic and naive. History tells us that these things rarely go as planned, and often lead to prolonged conflicts and instability. And yet, here we are again, facing the potential of another misadventure.
The underlying theme is the abuse of power. The classic case of “when you’re losing, start a war,” or the desire to manipulate the situation for political gain. It’s disheartening to think that this is how the world works, but sometimes that’s just how it feels. The prospect of another war is not only costly in resources, but also costs the people who are affected.
There is also the question of why Mexico isn’t the target? As one person suggested, that is because the Mexican cartels are playing ball. It is likely to be an attempt to get into the business in the right way.
All this paints a bleak picture. The fact that this idea is even being considered is a sign of deeper problems. There’s a lack of transparency, a disregard for international norms, and a willingness to use military force as a first resort. It’s a pattern that has to stop.