On October 16, an unsettling warning echoed across Trinidadian airwaves, urging fishermen to remain close to shore due to fears of U.S. military airstrikes. This cautionary message followed the tragic death of two Trinidadian fishermen, Chad Joseph and Richie Samaroo, who were killed in a U.S. Navy airstrike targeting their boat as they made a short journey from Venezuela to Trinidad. The U.S. government, led by President Donald Trump, justified the attack by labeling the vessel as affiliated with a “Designated Terrorist Organization,” though the specific cartel involved was not disclosed. This incident marked a grim escalation in the ongoing military operations in the Caribbean, raising questions about the implications of such actions in a region often considered America’s backyard.
The airstrike on the fishermen’s boat is not an isolated event but rather a piece of a larger puzzle that hints at a potential conflict brewing in the southern Caribbean. As of now, eight American warships, manned by over 4,500 Marines and sailors, are positioned just outside Venezuelan waters. Reports indicate the presence of guided-missile cruisers and Reaper drones stationed in Puerto Rico, alongside stealth fighter jets, all part of a military buildup that suggests a looming confrontation with Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro.
Since early September, the U.S. military has intensified its operations against alleged drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean, conducting extrajudicial strikes on boats purportedly involved in narcotics trafficking. By designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations, the U.S. government has effectively altered the legal landscape, allowing for lethal actions against individuals accused of drug-related offenses—a move that raises significant ethical and legal questions. The justification for these strikes hinges on the assertion that each targeted vessel could save thousands from the scourge of drug trafficking, a claim that echoes the rhetoric used in previous military interventions.
Maduro has been painted as a drug kingpin, with the U.S. Department of Justice placing a $50 million bounty on his head. This narrative has been bolstered by claims of CIA involvement in covert operations aimed at destabilizing his regime. However, the media’s focus on these military actions has overshadowed the broader implications of a potential war with Venezuela, a country that, despite its internal challenges, poses no direct military threat to the United States.
The current situation bears striking similarities to the lead-up to the Iraq War, where a lengthy campaign of misinformation and media manipulation set the stage for military intervention. In contrast, the impending conflict with Venezuela is being approached with a sense of inevitability, lacking the extensive public discourse and opposition that characterized past military engagements. The absence of a clear justification for such actions—coupled with the lack of a coherent narrative around the supposed threats posed by Venezuela—raises alarms about the motivations behind this military buildup.
Experts warn that a military intervention in Venezuela could lead to catastrophic consequences. Estimates suggest that maintaining order in the country would require a substantial troop presence, potentially upwards of 200,000 U.S. soldiers, facing a complex insurgency in a challenging terrain. The historical context of U.S. interventions reveals a pattern of destabilization, with past efforts often resulting in failed states rather than the establishment of functioning democracies.
The current administration’s military doctrine appears to prioritize destruction and destabilization over traditional state-building efforts. Public statements from officials reflect a troubling cavalier attitude toward the consequences of intervention, with one advisor likening leaving Maduro in power to appointing a notorious criminal to a position of trust. This rhetoric underscores a shift away from the need for justification in warfare, as the age of the “justified war” seems to be waning.
As the U.S. government inches closer to a potential conflict with Venezuela, the narrative surrounding the intervention remains largely unchallenged. The lack of robust opposition or critical media coverage raises concerns about the implications of such a military campaign, not only for Venezuela but for the broader geopolitical landscape. The situation calls for a renewed examination of the motivations behind U.S. military actions and the potential consequences for both the region and international relations at large.
