Key Takeaways:
- The US has a history of relying on coercion to achieve its foreign policy goals, which can lead to short-term obedience but is counterproductive in building durable power.
- The use of force to remove a leader does not necessarily lead to a legitimate political order.
- The US has increased its military interventions since the end of the Cold War, while underinvesting in diplomacy and other tools of statecraft.
- The consequences of this imbalance can be seen in the failures of US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
- Assuming governance in Venezuela would carry significant strategic costs, including undermining the principles of sovereignty and nonintervention, and complicating alliance diplomacy.
Introduction to America the Bully
The image of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro blindfolded and handcuffed aboard a US naval vessel is a stark representation of the Trump administration’s foreign policy approach. This approach, which I have previously described as "America the Bully," relies heavily on coercion, including military, economic, and political means, to deter adversaries and compel compliance from weaker nations. While this approach may yield short-term results, it is ultimately counterproductive in building durable power, which depends on legitimacy and capacity. The use of coercion in governance can harden resistance, narrow diplomatic options, and transform local political failures into contests of national pride.
The Venezuelan Crisis
The crisis in Venezuela is a complex issue, with the country’s economy imploding, democratic institutions being hollowed out, and millions of people fleeing the country. However, removing a leader, even a brutal and incompetent one like Maduro, is not the same as advancing a legitimate political order. The US declaration of intent to govern Venezuela creates a governance trap, where external force is mistakenly treated as a substitute for domestic legitimacy. As a scholar of international security, civil wars, and US foreign policy, I can attest that force can topple rulers, but it cannot generate political authority.
The Limits of Force
The use of force in Venezuela reflects a broader shift in how the US uses its power. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has increased the frequency of military interventions while systematically underinvesting in diplomacy and other tools of statecraft. This trend is reinforced by institutional imbalance, with the US allocating $28 to the military for every dollar invested in the diplomatic "scalpel" of the State Department. As a result, "kinetic diplomacy" becomes the default approach, not because it is more effective, but because it is the only tool of statecraft immediately available. The consequences of this imbalance can be seen in the failures of US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
Lessons from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya
The US-led attempts to engineer authority in these countries built on external force alone proved brittle and ultimately failed. In Afghanistan, the US-backed state-building collapsed almost instantly once US forces withdrew in 2021. In Iraq, the US plan for transition to a stable democratic nation ignored key cultural, social, and historical conditions, leading to a prolonged struggle over sovereignty and economic development. In Libya, the removal of dictator Moammar Gadhafi was followed by civil war, fragmentation, and a prolonged struggle over sovereignty and economic development. The common thread across all three cases is hubris: the belief that American management could replace political legitimacy.
The Costs of ‘Running’ a Country
Taking on governance in Venezuela would carry significant strategic costs, including undermining the principles of sovereignty and nonintervention that underpin the international order. It would also complicate alliance diplomacy, forcing partners to reconcile US actions with the very rules they are trying to defend elsewhere. The US has historically been strongest when it anchored an open sphere built on collaboration with allies, shared rules, and voluntary alignment. Launching a military operation and then assuming responsibility for governance shifts Washington toward a closed, coercive model of power, which relies on force to establish authority and is prohibitively costly to sustain over time.
The Consequences of Unilateral Governance
The US attack on a sovereign state and subsequent claim to administer it would weaken its ability to contest rival arguments that force alone determines political authority. This would have significant implications for US relations with other countries, including China and Russia. Beijing and Moscow could point to US behavior to justify their own use of force, undermining US credibility and making it more difficult for allies to justify their ties to the US. The erosion of credibility would not produce dramatic rupture, but it would steadily narrow the space for cooperation over time and the advancement of US interests and capabilities. Ultimately, force may be fast, but legitimacy is the only currency that buys durable peace and stability, which remain enduring US interests.