The Perilous Path of Coercive Foreign Policy: America's Dangerous Gamble in Venezuela

The Venezuela Intervention: Facts and Context

The recent seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores by U.S. forces, followed by President Donald Trump’s declaration that the United States would “run” Venezuela until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” could be arranged, represents a dramatic escalation in American foreign policy. This action, as detailed in the analysis, reflects a broader trend toward what scholar Monica Duffy Toft describes as “America the Bully” - an approach that increasingly relies on military, economic, and political coercion to compel compliance from weaker nations.

There is no disputing the catastrophic failure of Maduro’s dictatorship. Under his rule, Venezuela’s economy imploded, democratic institutions were hollowed out, criminal networks fused with the state, and millions fled the country - many seeking refuge in the United States. The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela is real and devastating. However, as the article demonstrates through rigorous research from the Military Intervention Project, the United States has sharply increased the frequency of military interventions since the end of the Cold War while systematically underinvesting in diplomacy and other tools of statecraft.

The institutional imbalance is staggering: for every dollar invested in the State Department’s diplomatic “scalpel” to prevent conflict, America allocates $28 to the military “hammer” of the Defense Department. This ensures that force becomes a first rather than last resort, with “kinetic diplomacy” becoming the default not because it’s more effective, but because it’s the only tool immediately available.

The False Promise of Force as Governance

The fundamental flaw in the Venezuela approach - and indeed in much of contemporary American foreign policy - is the dangerous misconception that force can generate political legitimacy. As a scholar of international security and civil wars, I must emphasize what decades of research and practical experience have demonstrated: force can topple rulers, but it cannot create political authority.

When the United States declares its intent to govern Venezuela, it creates a governance trap of its own making - one where external force is mistakenly treated as a substitute for domestic legitimacy. This approach has failed spectacularly in recent history. In Afghanistan, two decades of foreign-backed state-building collapsed almost instantly once U.S. forces withdrew in 2021. No amount of reconstruction spending could compensate for the absence of a political order rooted in domestic consent.

In Iraq, the Defense Department’s plan ignored key cultural, social, and historical conditions, assuming that credible threats of coercion supplemented by private contractors would lead to rapid democratization. Instead, the U.S. became responsible for security, electricity, water, jobs, and political reconciliation - tasks no foreign power can perform without becoming an object of resistance.

Libya demonstrated another failure mode: the removal of Moammar Gadhafi without any follow-up governance resulted in civil war, fragmentation, militia rule, and prolonged struggle over sovereignty that continues today. The common thread across all these cases is hubris - the belief that American management could replace political legitimacy.

The Strategic Costs of Coercive Foreign Policy

Assuming responsibility for governing Venezuela would carry profound strategic costs that extend far beyond the immediate humanitarian concerns. A military attack followed by foreign administration fundamentally undermines the principles of sovereignty and nonintervention that underpin the international order the United States claims to support.

This approach complicates alliance diplomacy by forcing partners to reconcile U.S. actions with the very rules they are trying to defend elsewhere. Historically, America has been strongest when it anchored an open sphere built on collaboration with allies, shared rules, and voluntary alignment. Launching military operations and assuming governance responsibility shifts Washington toward a closed, coercive model of power - one that relies on force to establish authority and is prohibitively costly to sustain over time.

The signals sent by such actions are read not only in European capitals but are watched closely in Taipei, Tokyo, Seoul - and just as carefully in Beijing and Moscow. When the United States attacks a sovereign state and claims the right to administer it, it weakens its ability to contest rival arguments that force alone, rather than legitimacy, determines political authority.

Beijing needs only to point to U.S. behavior to argue that great powers rule as they please where they can - an argument that could justify the takeover of Taiwan. Moscow can cite such precedent to justify the use of force in its near abroad beyond Ukraine. This erosion of credibility doesn’t produce dramatic rupture, but it steadily narrows the space for cooperation over time and the advancement of U.S. interests and capabilities.

The Moral Imperative of Legitimacy-Based Foreign Policy

As Americans committed to democracy, freedom, and liberty, we must recognize that our nation’s strength has never derived from military dominance alone. Our power comes from our moral authority, our commitment to constitutional principles, and our respect for the sovereignty of other nations. The Founders understood this when they crafted a republic based on consent of the governed, not coercion by the powerful.

The current approach to Venezuela represents a betrayal of these fundamental American values. By treating force as a substitute for legitimacy, we abandon the very principles that make America exceptional. We become the very type of power against which our Revolution was fought - an external force imposing its will without consent.

Venezuela’s infrastructure is already in ruins. If the United States assumes responsibility for governance, it will be blamed for every blackout, every food shortage, and every bureaucratic failure. The liberator will quickly become the occupier, and whatever goodwill might exist initially will evaporate as the realities of foreign administration become apparent.

A Better Path Forward

The solution lies not in abandoning our concerns about Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis or Maduro’s authoritarian rule, but in pursuing a more sophisticated approach that recognizes the limitations of force and the necessity of legitimacy. This requires reinvesting in diplomatic capabilities, working through multilateral institutions, supporting legitimate opposition movements, and recognizing that sustainable change must come from within Venezuelan society.

We must embrace what the late political scientist Joseph Nye called “soft power” - the ability to attract and persuade rather than coerce. This means supporting civil society, promoting economic development, and building partnerships based on mutual respect rather than domination.

Force is fast. Legitimacy is slow. But legitimacy is the only currency that buys durable peace and stability - both of which remain enduring U.S. interests. If Washington governs by force in Venezuela, it will repeat the failures of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya: Power can topple regimes, but it cannot create political authority. Outside rule invites resistance, not stability.

As Americans, we must demand better from our leaders. We must insist on a foreign policy that reflects our deepest values rather than betraying them. The path of coercion leads only to diminished influence, moral compromise, and strategic failure. The path of legitimacy, while more challenging, leads to sustainable peace, strengthened alliances, and a world where American leadership means something more than military dominance.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were not created for us alone - they represent universal principles that should guide our interactions with the world. When we abandon those principles abroad, we undermine them at home. The struggle for democracy in Venezuela will not be won through American tanks and administrators, but through supporting the Venezuelan people’s right to self-determination and their capacity to build their own legitimate institutions.

This is not merely a strategic calculation - it is a moral imperative. As a nation founded on the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, we cannot become the very force against which we once rebelled. We must choose legitimacy over force, partnership over domination, and patience over impulsive action. The future of American leadership - and the cause of freedom worldwide - depends on it.