By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has warned Donald Trump against engaging in a prolonged military conflict in the region, particularly after the arrival of a significant US military presence. Simultaneously, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Operation Southern Spear, aimed at eradicating “narco-terrorists” in the Americas, intensifying the pressure on Maduro’s government. Despite the US’s official stance on the “war on drugs,” many view the expanded deployment as a political maneuver to overthrow Maduro. In response, Maduro’s regime is reportedly preparing a guerrilla-style defense plan, including sabotage and acts of chaos, to counter any potential US attack.
Read the original article here
Venezuela’s Maduro is clearly trying to shape the narrative, and his recent statements urging Donald Trump to avoid an Afghanistan-style “forever war” are a key example of this. The implication is that any US involvement in Venezuela could lead to a protracted conflict, echoing the costly and ultimately unsuccessful US engagement in Afghanistan. However, the situation in Venezuela is vastly different, and Maduro’s comparison seems to be more about political maneuvering than a genuine assessment of the realities on the ground.
The fact is, Venezuela is not Afghanistan. The terrain, the social dynamics, and the political landscape are worlds apart. While Venezuela’s landscape might offer opportunities for guerrilla warfare, the population isn’t driven by the same kind of religious fervor and tribalism that fueled the long war in Afghanistan. Venezuelans are, for the most part, a unitary nation with a predominantly Western cultural background. It’s hard to imagine widespread support for Maduro’s regime, given the dire economic and political conditions in the country. This means any conflict would likely be very different from the Afghanistan experience.
Consider the context: Maduro presides over a country riddled with economic hardship, human rights abuses, and a deeply unpopular regime. Reports suggest that Maduro lost the last election by a landslide, and his government has responded with violence and repression to suppress dissent. This paints a picture of a dictator clinging to power, not a popular leader with widespread support. The argument that the Venezuelan people would rally behind Maduro in a prolonged conflict is, frankly, not very convincing.
Furthermore, it’s worth noting the potential scenarios that could unfold. Rather than a ground invasion, the most likely US response, if any, might involve targeted airstrikes and special operations, perhaps aimed at crippling Maduro’s military infrastructure and key assets. The goal wouldn’t be to occupy the country, but rather to facilitate a change in leadership. A situation similar to the Panama invasion of the past, with a quick and decisive operation, seems more plausible than a drawn-out conflict like the one in Afghanistan.
The comparison also fails to consider the strategic implications. Venezuela is geographically close to the US and is not landlocked. This proximity means that a conflict there would be quite different than the conflicts in Afghanistan, which have taken place far away from the US. This difference will drastically change the type of intervention and the strategic goals the US has in the country. The US has already deployed some Naval forces to the country in an effort to provide pressure on the country.
Additionally, Maduro’s warnings likely serve multiple purposes. He’s trying to portray himself as a victim of potential US aggression, rallying support from those wary of foreign intervention. He’s also trying to deter any potential US action by raising the specter of a quagmire. Ironically, many Venezuelans themselves are hoping for a change in regime. A significant number of Venezuelans are hoping for this outcome.
The internal dynamic in Venezuela also plays a critical role. Maduro’s government is reportedly intertwined with narco-cartels, meaning that the military is starving, and is likely not motivated to fight for Maduro. If the US were to act against Maduro’s regime, it’s possible that elements within the military might even be open to cooperating, especially if it meant a way out for themselves.
Looking at the broader political picture, Trump’s interest in Venezuela might well be driven by domestic political considerations as much as anything else. The timing of the discussion also is not a coincidence: the Epstein files and economic fiascos are both weighing heavily on his administration. Regardless, Venezuela could be the perfect distraction from these issues, and the situation could lead to some quick results.
Ultimately, while Maduro is trying to paint a picture of an inevitable forever war, it is highly unlikely to materialize. The reality of the situation in Venezuela, the internal dynamics, and the US’s likely approach point toward a different outcome – one that is more likely to resemble a surgical intervention than a lengthy and costly conflict.