The U.S. adventure in Venezuela is justified, but it puts Trump's 'America First' stance to the test

By Gary Abernathy

Some Trump allies are upset, but it’s foolish to pretend that global events don’t directly impact the U.S.

The bold military action in Venezuela that led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro and his wife naturally resulted in a torrent of criticism from certain quarters.

Unsurprisingly, there was the usual blowback from Democrats and Never Trumpers, people who would find ways to complain about President Donald J. Trump if he, yes, cured cancer.

But there has also been criticism from members of Trump’s MAGA base — criticism that reveals an unrealistic view of what the “America First” philosophy should actually encompass in the modern world.

For many, “America First” apparently means an extreme form of isolationism that pretends that the United States is an island unto itself, burying its head in the sand and wishing the rest of the world good luck while we concern ourselves only with events that occur on U.S. soil, or respond only if the U.S. is directly attacked.

That “Fortress America” attitude would quickly lead to disaster. It’s like equipping your home with all the latest security technology and arming yourself to the teeth while your neighboring homes are invaded by criminal elements until you find yourself surrounded by nothing but violence and destruction.

Eventually, they’re coming for you, and they’ll ultimately break down the door, even if you manage to fend them off for a while.

The world is smaller than ever

It is true that the U.S. has often gone too far in playing the role of world cop. We should be cautious about deploying our assets, whether technological or human, to intervene in matters that do not directly impact the safety, security or economic well-being of the United States.

But to whom are we willing to concede the role of world cop? “America First” cannot mean wearing blinders or ignoring global problems. It simply means that in every decision, a president should put America’s interests first and foremost over those of any other nation.

But technology and air travel have appreciably — even frighteningly — shrunk this world compared to a century ago. Both friends and foes are in closer proximity to us than ever before. We cannot pretend that’s not the case.

Trump obviously realizes as much. He has, for example, been more patient with the Russia-Ukraine war than his campaign rhetoric had suggested. He has wisely not followed through on threats to essentially abandon Ukraine.

Still, there is a very real sense that if a peaceful resolution is not soon found, U.S. involvement under Trump will wind down, come what may. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is undoubtedly aware of this fact. Unlike other presidents, Trump’s patience is not inexhaustible.

Despite rhetoric from some quarters, the U.S. has not waged war on Venezuela. Our military, under the president’s orders, conducted a surgical operation that apprehended the illegitimate Venezuelan leader — a leader who was not only indicted in the U.S. on various crimes, but who was an aggressive ally of our most dedicated enemies and competitors.

Most importantly, Maduro was supplying oil — the most important currency in the world — to China, while Russian vessels were often utilized for transportation.

Venezuela’s oil industry was built by U.S. companies until Venezuelan leaders “nationalized” the industry and essentially robbed us of untold resources and dollars. Trump cited this atrocity at length in defending his actions, and he is right, as I detail in a separate column for The Empowerment Alliance (which will be posted soon at this link.)

It is true that the Trump administration is being heavy handed now not only with Venezuela, but also with threats directed at Colombia (which has been increasingly cozying up to China) and Cuba (basically a longtime Russian proxy). And Trump’s fixation on annexing Greenland is simply bizarre.

Many historians are suggesting Trump’s actions represent a return to the U.S. record of “gunboat diplomacy.”

As ABC News put it, “Trump’s rhetoric harkens back to the muscular talk of the late 19th and early 20th centuries when American presidents deployed the military for territorial and resource conquests, including to Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.”

Fight, win, go home

But it’s important to note that so far our Venezuelan adventure has been extremely limited. If Trump follows through with his commitment that U.S. involvement will be short-term until new leadership is firmly in place, and if his threats to other countries remain only verbal assaults, then he cannot be fairly accused of following the interventionist actions of some of his predecessors.

For now, Trump deserves the benefit of the doubt that he will be the kind of commander-in-chief he has long insisted others should have been — reluctant to intervene, but decisive and quick when such intervention is necessary. If the U.S. does ever go to war, under Trump’s philosophy the objective should be to fight, win, go home.

In Venezuela, Trump has sent the kind of reminder to the world that is occasionally needed — the U.S. is not to be trifled with. We will not let bad actors in our own hemisphere send poison (drugs) into our country without repercussions. We will not let our adversaries extract or import oil from our hemisphere when it rightfully should go to the U.S.

We will make sure our part of the world — our neighborhood — is a safe and peaceful place to live so that our own house remains safe and secure.

For now, that is the path Trump appears to be following. If he sticks to it, he should be commended. If he wanders from it, the criticism will be deserved.