The Strategic Necessity of Taking Out Maduro

What looked like another endless war was instead 

a clean Monroe Doctrine strike—neutralizing Maduro, 

securing U.S. interests, and leaving without a quagmire.

American  Greatness 

I’ll be honest. When I woke up in the early hours of January 3, 2026, and briefly checked my news feed, I was alarmed when I saw that America had its elite military forces on the ground in Venezuela. You see, as a veteran of America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, one of the primary reasons I supported Donald Trump in 2024 was that he would end our entanglement in what I call “useless, endless wars.” Later in the day, my alarm bells started ringing ever louder when President Trump announced, “We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.”

Uh oh.

Had we just walked into yet another useless, endless war? Had Trump betrayed his base by doing exactly the opposite of what he promised? I spent the better part of the weekend trying to understand what we had done and what the future portends. I finally concluded that what we are seeing in Venezuela is a strategic necessity, different from Iraq and Libya because those were wars of choice, and distinct from Afghanistan. After all, the culture and history of Venezuela will not suck us into twenty years of useless combat.

The fact that America squandered blood and treasure in twenty years of useless, endless wars does not mean that all U.S. military operations are bad. Failures in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot and should not prevent us from taking military action when our national security demands it. Such is the case with the early morning raid on Venezuela’s erstwhile president, Nicolás Maduro.

While we ostensibly captured Maduro based on legitimate, outstanding U.S. drug charges from 2020, the real reason for the military operations early Saturday morning is that neutralizing Maduro’s Venezuela had become a strategic necessity for the USA.

Under the illegitimate Maduro regime, Venezuela had become the Latin American crossroads for all of the USA’s principal enemies. Maduro was nurturing relationships with Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran. Worst of all, Venezuela was eagerly becoming a part of Red China’s Belt & Road Initiative.

As America’s enemies were lining up Venezuela as their base of operations in the Western Hemisphere to cause mischief and destruction for the USA, Maduro was at the same time making Venezuela a trafficking point, safe haven, and enabler for all manner of narcoterrorist operations, ranging from Colombia’s FARC to Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel to Venezuela’s homegrown cartel, Cartel de los Soles.

On top of all that, Venezuela had become a key player in the illegal alien invasion of the USA, shipping members of its very worst gangs to the USA in a deliberate and comprehensive destabilizing operation that might have worked had Donald Trump not won in 2024.

Venezuela’s oil is of equal significance. The global and regional ambitions of both China and Russia are, in large part, dependent on the politics of petroleum, and the USA just deprived both of the cudgel afforded by friendly Venezuelan oil. Trump opponents say, “It’s about oil,” as if that were a bad thing. Yeah, it’s about oil.

Finally, all of this was in keeping with the most essential and fundamental foreign policy mandate of the USA, almost since the nation’s inception: the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. The type of lawless operations that Maduro was running simply cannot be allowed in the Western Hemisphere if America is to endure. Trump was right to fall back on this most basic of doctrines that protects the USA’s sovereignty.

So was Maduro seized because of some five-year-old drug charges? Technically, yes. However, like so many strategic issues in the world today, a necessary action needed to be taken under the color of law, while a greater objective was the real driver of the action. The reality is that the Maduro takedown was a Monroe Doctrine-driven necessity that has greatly enhanced the national security of the USA.

This was brilliant realpolitik on the part of President Trump and his team, and it has greatly enhanced America’s national security with zero casualties in what was a textbook example of the unique military capabilities that only America possesses.

But the elephant in the room remains. What did Trump mean when he said, “We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition”? Is that another vain nation-building exercise like what we attempted in Afghanistan?

I think it is not, for reasons I will explain.

First, our mission statement in Venezuela went something like this: “Capture Maduro and return him to the USA for criminal prosecution.” Simple. Elegant. Contrast that with our mission statement from Afghanistan after we had neutralized al Qaeda, which I characterize as something like this: “Take an 8th-century feudal society and, using American infantry and armor divisions, turn it into an egalitarian, rights-based democracy.” A clean, simple, feasible mission statement is a key way to avoid useless, endless wars. In Afghanistan, America lost sight of this imperative. I do not believe Donald Trump is about to make the same mistake, hence the simple elegance of the Maduro mission statement and the operation itself.

Second, from what we know through unclassified channels, it appears that our military presence in Venezuela was one and done—we brought the whole team home and did not leave any “boots on the ground.” The future remains uncertain, but if we had intended to use our military to build a new governance structure in Venezuela, it is highly likely we would have mimicked Afghanistan with a prolonged occupation by stabilizing forces. Thus far, we have not done so, and nothing at the moment signifies that we will need to do so in the future.

Third, Venezuela is a long-standing member of the body of civilized nations. Venezuela achieved its independence in 1830, and despite a checkered history of military strongmen leading the country, from 1958 until 1999, Venezuela was a democracy. Further, the Venezuelan people have a strong national identity as Venezuelans and a desire to see their nation ruled fairly. Contrast this with the tribal society in Afghanistan. There is no national identity of “Afghanistan.” Instead, that region’s inhabitants see themselves first and foremost as members of a tribe: Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, etc. In Afghanistan, one of our great failures was in not recognizing the unchanging status of tribal loyalty. In Venezuela, there is one tribe—Venezuelans—meaning that it is highly likely Venezuela can restore its democracy without the help of an “International Security Assistance Force,” as was required (and which failed) in Afghanistan.

Finally, it appears that there are multiple avenues by which to quickly restore legitimate governance in Venezuela. Although the Trump Administration has been tight-lipped on this issue, it appears as if they may have made a deal with Venezuela’s Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez (despite the fact that she has publicly condemned the seizure of Maduro, which may just be posturing to save face). Alternatively, opposition leader (and Nobel Peace Prize winner) María Corina Machado would possess a high degree of legitimacy as president (despite President Trump’s remarks that she lacks popular support), and her ally (and legitimate winner of the stolen 2024 presidential election) Edmundo González would similarly possess great legitimacy in the eyes of Venezuelans.

Admittedly, Maduro’s replacement is the last piece of the puzzle, and that very significant issue is currently clouded in uncertainty. If things are to go badly wrong with respect to America’s intervention in Venezuela, it would likely be in the consolidation of power in the weeks and months ahead, and it is this possibility that likely led President Trump to mention a possible “second wave” of military action. However, unlike with the tribal politics of Afghanistan, and unlike the overthrown dictators in Iraq and Libya, removing the head of state in Venezuela does not leave an absolute power vacuum. Quite the opposite is true in Venezuela, where a constitution, a tradition of democracy, and a well-organized central government already exist, and several well-known contenders to the presidency will likely enjoy full legitimacy in the eyes of their countrymen and women once installed or elected as president.

Given the above reasons, it is unlikely that President Trump has dragged us into another quagmire, and American “boots on the ground” will likely consist solely of seasoned civilian engineers and oil workers sent to rebuild Venezuela’s crumbling oil refineries and other petroleum infrastructure.

In an America scarred by twenty years of useless, endless wars, President Trump has upheld his promise to keep us out of quagmires while at the same time exerting just the right amount of decisive military force necessary to ensure America’s national security. A Maduro-run Venezuela was in the process of creating a haven in our own hemisphere for our most dangerous adversaries. In one fell swoop, President Trump eliminated that threat, and he did so in a way that likely will require zero further violent action by America’s military.

In a dangerous world full of uncertainty, the Trump Administration has applied the minimum necessary force to eliminate a growing threat of great strategic importance. President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, together with their teams, deserve our applause for spotting an essential problem and doing what was necessary to eliminate it in the most efficient manner possible—well done, gentlemen.