By Ephraim Agbo
The USS Gerald R. Ford, America's largest warship, now casts its shadow over the Caribbean coast of Venezuela. It is the centerpiece of the most significant U.S. military buildup in Latin America in decades, involving nearly a dozen Navy ships and approximately 15,000 personnel. The official mission, declared by President Donald Trump and his cabinet, is a "counter-drug operation" targeting "narco-terrorist" regimes poisoning America. Yet, as the strikes multiply and the rhetoric escalates, a more profound and unsettling question emerges: Is the United States, under the guise of a drug war, reviving a two-century-old doctrine of hemispheric dominance and steering the world toward a dangerous new paradigm of conflict?
The Doctrine Reborn: From Monroe to "Narco-Terrorism"
The historical echo is unmistakable. In 1823, the Monroe Doctrine declared the Western Hemisphere a U.S. sphere of influence. Two centuries later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth employs nearly identical language, stating, "The Western Hemisphere is America’s neighborhood, and we will protect it". This revival is not merely rhetorical; it is being operationalized through a novel and legally elastic framework: the designation of drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).
This strategic reframing is epitomized by the U.S. focus on Venezuela's "Cartel de los Soles." While the term has been used for decades in Latin American media to describe corruption and drug trafficking within Venezuela's military, experts consistently note it is not a hierarchical, mafia-style cartel. Adam Isaacson of the Washington Office on Latin America explains, "It's not a group... They don't have regular meetings. They don't have a hierarchy".
Nevertheless, the Trump administration has formally designated it as an FTO led personally by President Nicolás Maduro. This move, critics argue, is less about crime-fighting and more about constructing a legal pretext. The designation grants the U.S. broader authority for military and financial actions, effectively portraying a complex state as a terrorist syndicate and paving a potential path for regime change.
A War Without Evidence: The Campaign of Strikes
Since September, the U.S. military has conducted at least 22 strikes on vessels alleged to be smuggling drugs, killing at least 87 people. The administration has called this an "armed conflict" with drug cartels. However, this campaign is marked by a stunning lack of public evidence and mounting legal controversy:
· Unverified Targets: The administration "has provided no evidence supporting its allegations about the vessels or the people on board". In one critical instance, the target boat was reportedly traveling away from the United States toward Suriname, with its cargo ultimately destined for Europe or Africa.
· The "Double-Tap" Strike: The very first strike on September 2 ignited a firestorm when it was revealed the military launched a follow-up attack that killed two survivors from the initial blast. Secretary Hegseth had ordered that the strike ensure "everyone on board" was killed. Admiral Frank Bradley, who oversaw the operation, told Congress the 11 individuals were on a pre-approved target list.
· Eroding International Support: The legal concerns have led key allies to withdraw cooperation. The United Kingdom has stopped sharing intelligence on drug-trafficking vessels to avoid complicity in strikes it considers illegal.
Below I summarize the key controversies surrounding the U.S. military strikes:
Legal and Operational Controversies
· Public Evidence: None provided for any of the 22 strikes.
· Follow-up Strike: A second strike on Sept. 2 killed two survivors from the first attack.
· International Law: UN human rights chief called for an investigation; UK withdrew intelligence sharing.
· Congressional Oversight: Bipartisan investigations launched; senior commander testified for over 8 hours.
Blood for Oil? The Unspoken Strategic Calculus
While the administration cites narcotics, many observers, including officials within the U.S. government, point to another resource: Venezuela's vast oil reserves, the largest in the world. Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Jake Auchincloss, a Marine veteran with counter-narcotics experience in Central America, dismisses the drug rationale. "This is not about drugs... This is about oil. It's about money," he stated, calling the situation "blood for oil 2.0".
The oil industry context is critical. Before sanctions crippled its production, Venezuela was a major supplier to the U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. Today, its oil industry is largely closed to Western markets. Analyst Phil Flynn notes that recapturing this market and helping Venezuela restore its production "would be tremendously helpful" for global supply. Colonel Mark Cancian (ret.), a defense analyst, suggests that while oil may not be the primary driver, a post-Maduro scenario would likely see U.S. firms helping to revive the industry.
The Pandora's Box of Military Escalation
The administration has sent conflicting signals about its endgame. Trump has not ruled out ground operations or strikes on land targets, even as he has floated the possibility of talks. However, military analysts universally dismiss a full-scale invasion as impractical and politically untenable. The more likely scenario, according to experts like Cancian, is a limited air and missile campaign aimed at government or cartel-linked infrastructure.
The potential consequences of any military action, however limited, are grimly predictable:
· Strengthening Maduro: History shows that external aggression often triggers a "rally-around-the-flag" effect, solidifying support for the incumbent.
· Destabilizing Venezuela and the Region: Elias Ferrer of Orinoco Research warns an attack would open a "Pandora's box," potentially empowering armed groups and criminal organizations and triggering a massive new refugee crisis.
· A Regional Template: Scholar Salvador Santino Regilme warns the Venezuela model could be applied elsewhere, "where complex domestic crises are reframed as ‘narco-terrorist’ threats" to justify military force across the hemisphere.
The Fraying of Legal and Institutional Norms
Perhaps the most enduring damage is to the framework of law and democratic accountability. The campaign is being conducted with minimal transparency and against growing congressional unease, even within the President's own party. Republicans, while publicly supportive, are reportedly wary of significant escalation beyond the maritime strikes.
The core legal innovation—treating drug traffickers as combatants in an "armed conflict"—sets a perilous precedent. Sarah Harrison, a former Pentagon attorney, argues the strikes are unlawful: "They’re killing civilians in the first place". This approach, critics warn, replaces law enforcement and due process with a global, permanent shadow war where suspects are placed on kill lists and denied any legal recourse.
Conclusion: The Shadow of Tomorrow
The crisis over Venezuela is more than a bilateral dispute. It is a stress test for the international order. The U.S., by resurrecting the Monroe Doctrine through the lexicon of counter-terrorism, is crafting a tool for intervention that is purposefully ambiguous and legally contentious. The "Cartel de los Soles" is not merely a criminal network; it is a geopolitical construct, a narrative device used to justify a policy of maximum pressure that teeters on the brink of open warfare.
The silence following the explosions in the Caribbean is not an absence of evidence; it is the sound of norms eroding. It is the sound of a world where sovereignty is conditional, where war is redefined by the powerful, and where the long shadow of a 19th-century doctrine falls across a 21st-century conflict. The ultimate target may not be Maduro alone, but the very principles of transparency, legality, and restraint that have—however imperfectly—governed the relations between states.
No comments:
Post a Comment