The Model for a U.S. Military Intervention in Venezuela
U.S. soldiers run for cover after arriving at a military command post loyal to General Manuel Antonio Noriega on December 23, 1989. Santiago Credit – Manoocher Deghati—AFP/Getty Images
It’s becoming more and more evident It is stated that the United States may be preparing for some kind of military intervention or covert action to eliminate drug trafficking networks operating in Venezuela and possibly even overthrow the country’s autocratic leader Nicholas Maduro. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has long been a vocal critic of the Venezuelan President, sees an opportunity for the Trump Administration to take action against what he sees as “negativity.”imminent threat“To American security. Maduro, widely considered to have openly deceived The path to victory in the country’s last presidential election getting ready people’s resistance against a possible invasion from the USA
While it is too early to tell what will happen in the South American country, the simmering conflict is reminiscent of one that occurred 1,600 kilometers west of Venezuela 36 years ago. In targeting Maduro, the Trump Administration is using the same tactic that President George HW Bush used against dictator and drug trafficker Manuel Noriega in Panama in 1989. This occupation provides a template for action against Venezuela today. But the consequences of American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 (which also implemented the Panama model) offer a warning to our current leaders about how to use this intervention.
Noriega history His relations with the United States began in the 1950s, when the CIA recruited him as a paid informant. This marked the beginning of a long career in which he served as a Cold War asset in the United States’ conflict with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Nicaragua’s Sandinistas, and other Caribbean communists. In the 1970s, the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Ga., equipped him with the tools he needed to serve as Panama’s intelligence chief. By the middle of that decade, the CIA was paying Noriega $110,000 a year. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents also found it useful when they wanted to arrest small-time Panamanian drug dealers.
Read more: Trump’s Domestic Pressures for a Possible War in Venezuela
Despite this long relationship, Noriega proved to be an extremely unreliable Cold War partner. While on the payroll in Washington, he provided Castro with intelligence on U.S. operations and helped facilitate arms shipments from Cuba to various Marxist rebel groups.
Meanwhile, he amassed a massive personal fortune through his connections with Colombia’s drug cartels; His net worth was estimated to be as high as $800 million in the late 1980s. At the time, he was serving as his country’s top military officer, and from that position he oversaw the repression of political opponents and the intimidation of journalists. Yet for most of his time in office, President Ronald Reagan’s administration viewed Noriega as a useful partner in its effort to roll back Sandinista power in Nicaragua. CIA Director William Casey put it clearly: “He is a bastard, but he is our bastard.”
But by 1988, Noriega’s behavior had become a source of embarrassment for Washington. As the Iron Curtain collapsed, the United States was defending human rights and the rule of law in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. However, this rhetoric seemed empty in the face of drug trafficking and games with a hypocritical despot like Noriega.
That February, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted Noriega along with Miami-based U.S. Attorney Leon B. Kellner on cocaine trafficking charges. stating He said the Panamanian leader “used his position to sell the country of Panama to drug traffickers.” Far from being deterred, Noriega increased his authoritarianism. Ahead of Panama’s 1989 national elections, his supporters attacked opposition leaders and their supporters, detained US forces stationed in the country, and harassed journalists. Then he nullified The election angered American officials. US Ambassador Arthur Davis condemned the dictator’s “cowardly behavior” and expressed support for opposition candidate Guillermo Endara.
On December 15, Noriega declared that his country was at war with the United States. A day later, a member of the Panamanian Defense Force (PDF) was killed A U.S. Marine officer after a tense exchange at a checkpoint in Panama City. PDF then tortured a US naval officer and his wife who witnessed the incident. Noriega became one enemy He was against Washington and it was only a matter of time before the US took action against him.
President Bush saw the situation as an opportunity to reassert America’s power abroad after the demoralizing experience of the Vietnam War. In Noriega he saw an increasingly anti-American drug trafficker who threatened not only democracy in Panama but also the stability of the region. Bush on December 20 explained He told the American people that he authorized the invasion of Panama to protect the lives of American citizens living in the country, to bring Noriega to justice for drug trafficking, and to “preserve the integrity of the Panama Canal agreement” of 1977 (which the United States signed). came back Control of the canal is in Panamanian hands.)
Bush sent 27,000 American troops to the Central American country. The intervention, the largest U.S. military operation since Vietnam, lasted only a few weeks and was deemed a success despite the deaths of 24 Americans and hundreds of Panamanians. On January 3, 1990, US soldiers arrested Noriega. he was prisoner He was sentenced to 40 years in prison for drug trafficking, racketeering and money laundering. General Maxwell R. Thurman later wrote“The Republic of Panama was reborn as a democratic nation after twenty-one years of military dictatorship. Twenty-three U.S. soldiers gave their lives so that the Panamanian government could begin the task of rebuilding democratic institutions and economic opportunities for all Panamanian people.”
The mission was successful because it had a narrow, clear goal and the United States used overwhelming force to achieve it. This approach resulted from President Bush’s influence on Reagan’s thoughts about Secretary of Defense Caspar. Weinberger and his own Chief of Staff Colin Powell’sHe believed that U.S. interventions should be as decisive, clear, and have achievable goals as possible. American forces in Panama had an achievable goal: arrest Noriega and bring him back to the United States for trial. as Powell in question Of Panama, he said, “No one even remembers the Panama war. You never hear of it. But I saw it as a template for how we should do things.”
Read more: Trump’s Caribbean Bombing Campaign Brings the War on Terror to the Americas
This model also served Bush well during the First Gulf War in 1991. President Bush set a clear and measurable goal of driving Iraq out of Kuwait, and he stuck to that goal by resisting the temptation to march on Baghdad as U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army.
Venezuela’s Maduro shares some similarities with Noriega. By suppressing dissent and interfering in his country’s elections, it seems unfriendly He was committed to democracy and the rule of law, as was the leader of Panama. There is USA accused Maduro and other members of his regime are being tried on drug trafficking and “narcoterrorism” charges, just like Noriega and his friends. Although Maduro’s ideology is perhaps more in line with Cuba’s Castro and he has never enjoyed the kind of courtship Noriega once courted Washington, he has governed in a similar manner. disrespect for human rights and a penchant for anti-American bullying. What happens next is anyone’s guess, but if the Trump Administration decides to intervene militarily for a quick arrest, U.S. forces will face a military response. unequipped The Venezuelan army is alongside the armed militias, as are the Panamanian armed forces and its “honor battalionsHe gained notoriety for beating Noriega’s opponents with a stick during the 1989 elections.
The invasion of Panama thus offers a template for a rapid and relatively painless US military intervention. But while this model worked for Bush in both Panama and Kuwait, that doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to work. After 9/11, Bush’s son, George W. Bush, sent American forces to the Middle East, especially Afghanistan and later Iraq. However, unlike his father, who had clear and narrow war aims, he embraced darker goals that required larger, longer-term military efforts. The result was disaster.
The different experiences of the two Bush presidents suggest that if the Trump administration decides to intervene militarily in Venezuela, it would be wise to stick more closely to the Panamanian example and have a narrow, short-term goal of arresting Maduro on drug trafficking charges, as opposed to a long-term stabilization project like Iraq and Afghanistan that could stir up anti-American sentiment and draw the United States into a protracted, unwinnable conflict.
Aaron S. Brown is a historian and author of: 1970s and the Formation of the Modern US-Mexico Border (Bloomsbury Academic) and has written for the Washington Post and History News Network.
Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Read more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of TIME editors.
Write to: By History at madebyhistory@time.com.
