The Venezuela Raid

On January 3, the U.S. forces conducted what has to be one of the most audacious and brilliantly executed operations in military history. To be able to snatch the President of foreign country from an inland capital, where he is at home and surrounded by his security forces on a military base, where he has an escape room, is something that has likely never been pulled off before. One sort-of comparable operation was when the Soviets launched an attack on the Presidential Palace in Kabul as part of their invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, but the purpose of that raid was to kill the then President of Afghanistan. But to be able to take a naval task force, park it off the coast of a country, ramp up pressure to the point that the President feels he needs to move to a military base, still be able to go in and grab him, and also successfully extract him alive is something never before seen. It is the rough equivalent of Michaelangelo’s painting of the Sistine Chapel; a one-of-a-kind work of art.

The diplomatic and political reactions to the raid have in some part been colored by individuals/entities overall opinion of Trump himself. Folks that are not well disposed towards the President have condemned the action, whereas those who like him have hailed it. But beyond that, the actual impact is likely to be substantial. Charges that Trump violated international law and diplomatic norms are accurate. However, it is pretty clear that the Trump Administration understood this going in and did it anyway. What the raid revealed and some of its effects are as follows:

The U.S.’s commitment to international law is shown to be situation specific.

Over the last few decades, the U.S. has more or less sought to maintain an image of a country that abided by international and diplomatic norms. While the U.S. has been willing to violate these norms on occasion (see “forcing down and search the President of Ecuador’s plane when they thought Edward Snowden might be on it”), overall the U.S. typically tried to go through international institutions in most cases (or at least attempted to give those institutions a “chance” to work). Even before the war in Iraq in 2003, the U.S. at least attempted to get the U.N. on board.

In this case, no attempt was made to enlist any international organizations. Siezing a head of state with whom one is not officially at war is way outside of the usual practice of the last decades. That the U.S., under Trump, is willing to go to such lengths. Is an indication, as if one was needed, that the former rules of conduct where the U.S. is concerned are flexible.

Potential enemies are put on notice as to the U.S. military’s capability.

The fact that the U.S. was able to pull this off will leave countries that are unfriendly to the U.S. uneasy. It’s one thing to know that your opponent would like to do something to you, but it’s a completely different thing to know that they actually can. The political calculation of those countries sitting on the fence between the U.S., Russia, China, India, and Europe, is going to be recalibrated. Regardless of the fact that the current acting President of Venezuela is Maduro’s Vice President, that the U.S. was able to remove him from power so quickly and with no losses will concentrate the minds of the current Venezuelan government which will be much more amenable to Trump’s “requests” going forward.

The U.S. willingness to do this gives it muscle in getting other countries to do what it wants.

There is a theory of power that says that it is better to be feared than loved. Regardless of whether the long-term geopolitical impacts of Trump’s moves are largely positive or largely negative from the American point of view, the fact is that many of the moves that countries are making are because of fear of what Trump will do. And although it may rub some the wrong way, not all of the geopolitical impacts are likely to be negative. A country that is feared is also respected. And in dealing with certain regimes around the world, being feared may be the only leverage that the U.S. is likely to have.

Conclusion:

Substantial military capability is something that the U.S. has had since the Second World War. However, what it has not always had in the subsequent decades is the willingness to use it. What Trump is disrupting (for better or worse) is a way of doing geopolitical business that many had thought was consigned to the 19^th-early 20^th century history books.  President Obama occasionally referred to some of Vladimir Putin’s actions as being out of the 19^th century. He undoubtedly meant that as an insult. While Trump is doing the same thing, from the American perspective, his bullying appears to be working on many fronts.

For example:

1.)    Iran no longer has an effective nuclear program.

2.)    Venezuela is now much less likely to be involved with Russia & China and much more likely to be in the U.S. sphere of influence.

3.)    NATO members have committed (and some actually have) to meeting their military spending commitments; something several U.S. Presidents had attempted to get them to do without much success.

4.)    Many trade deals have struck that appear to be beneficial to the U.S.

5.)    China seems unsure on how to deal with this Administration which is a probably a net positive for the U.S.

As uncomfortable as it may be for some, as long as Trump’s moves appear to be having a positive effect, he will have some support. How long or what extent each individual move may be positive is still an open question. The curtailment of Iran’s nuclear program is almost certainly a positive that will not somehow turn negative. Better trade deals likely fall into this category as well. How close Venezuela gets to the U.S. is an open question, as is how the increased NATO defense spending is actually used. And China will continue to be a challenge for the U.S. long after Trump is gone, no matter what he does.

However, the U.S. military pulling off a raid like Venezuela will cause a reassessment of the U.S. among the countries of the world. Those who saw Biden as weak and manipulatable (not a completely unfair assessment), and who were considering whether it was better to be the U.S.’s friend or China/Russia’s friend may be leaning more in the U.S. direction after the raid all things being equal. While Trump’s erratic personality (such as threatening trade deals that he negotiated over Greenland) may be a countervailing factor regarding whether one can trust deals one makes with him and pushing countries to consider alternative partners, the strength of the U.S. is likely to be the prevailing factor under consideration.

The raid has enhanced the prestige of the U.S. military and has given the countries of the world something else to consider as they consider how to navigate an increasingly multi-polar world.