In a troubling turn of events, former President Donald Trump has reignited tensions with Venezuela, launching attacks on boats he claims are operated by drug cartels. This aggressive move, which has drawn criticism even from unexpected quarters, highlights a concerning trend in U.S. foreign policy: the willingness to engage in military actions without proper justification or oversight.
John Yoo, a controversial figure from the George W. Bush administration known for his role in creating the infamous “torture memos,” has recently publicly condemned Trump’s actions. Yoo, who is not typically celebrated for his adherence to legal norms, has emerged as an unlikely voice warning against the dangerous implications of Trump’s military strikes against alleged drug trafficking vessels. He notes that these attacks may blur the lines between legitimate crime-fighting and acts of war, a sentiment that should resonate with anyone concerned about the rule of law and our constitutional framework.
Despite Yoo’s caution, which is surprisingly more robust than the responses from many congressional Republicans, it’s disheartening to see that most Democrats are also failing to take a stand. They are caught in a dilemma, as reported by Politico, where they fear that opposing Trump’s military actions might appear as a defense of the Venezuelan regime. This is a misguided concern borne from the past, where Democrats, including notable figures like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, aligned themselves with disastrous military interventions.
The current political landscape reveals a troubling trend among Democrats: a preemptive concession to militarism. On September 29, journalist Aída Chávez reported that a senior Democratic staffer discouraged party members from openly opposing regime change in Venezuela, echoing the flawed logic of the Bush era that equated anti-war sentiment with support for dictatorships.
This mentality is particularly evident in the comments from Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst. Slotkin’s focus appears to be on ensuring that Trump’s military operations adhere to legal protocols rather than outright opposing the campaign itself. Her remarks, which suggest a willingness to accept military action as long as it follows the law, illustrate a troubling acceptance of militarism within the Democratic Party.
Ben Rhodes, a former advisor to President Obama, criticized this cautious approach, asserting on the Pod Save the World podcast that Americans are fundamentally opposed to war and regime change. He urged Democrats to unequivocally reject Trump’s military actions in Venezuela, emphasizing the moral imperative to oppose extrajudicial killings and imperialistic behavior.
Trump’s actions have now escalated to the point where he has declared an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, labeling them as terrorist organizations. This declaration has prompted significant backlash from lawmakers, including Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Reed articulated the dangerous precedent Trump is setting by claiming unilateral authority to wage secret wars without credible legal justification, underscoring the need for Congressional oversight.
The implications of these military actions extend beyond mere foreign policy; they represent a shift towards a lawless approach where the powerful can impose their will without accountability. This trend is not new, having roots in the post-9/11 era and the War on Terror, which allowed for extraordinary measures that undermined international laws.
As progressives, we must recognize the critical moment we are in and the importance of standing against Trump’s reckless militarism. The Democratic Party must not shy away from opposing actions that could lead to an escalation of conflict with Venezuela. Instead, they should embrace a robust anti-war stance that prioritizes diplomacy and human rights over military might.
In conclusion, the Democrats must find their voice and assertively challenge Trump’s escalating aggression towards Venezuela. The stakes are too high for them to remain silent in the face of such blatant violations of law and ethics. By standing firm against these actions, they can reclaim their position as a party committed to peace and justice, rather than one that cedes ground to militaristic impulses. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand and demand a foreign policy that respects the sovereignty of nations and prioritizes dialogue over destruction.
