Tag: military

The ‘Law Enforcement’ Rationale for Invading Venezuela Is an Open-Ended License for War

Posted on by Lone Candle

“The “law enforcement” rationale for Saturday’s attack on Venezuela is nevertheless both implausible and troubling. It offers an open-ended license for any president who wants to excise Congress from decisions about the use of military force, accelerating a trend that threatens to nullify its constitutional war powers.

…

A superseding indictment that the Justice Department recently unsealed, which updates an indictment that the first Trump administration obtained in 2020, charges Maduro and several other Venezuelan officials with conspiracies involving narcoterrorism, cocaine importation, and machine gun possession. But Trump’s commitment to holding foreign leaders accountable for drug trafficking is open to question.

Just a month before invading Venezuela to serve justice on Maduro, Trump granted a “full and complete pardon” to former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of similar charges in March 2024. Thanks to that act of clemency, Hernández served just 18 months of his 45-year sentence.

…

According to the Trump administration, the president has unbridled authority to decide when such extreme measures are appropriate. Since “this was a law enforcement operation” rather than “military strikes for military purposes,” Rubio told The Washington Post, the administration did not need to notify Congress, let alone consult with legislators or seek permission.

A president who wants to attack another country, in other words, does not need an imminent threat, a declaration of war, or even an authorization for the use of military force. All he needs is an indictment, which is convenient because grand juries almost always approve charges recommended by federal prosecutors.

…

We cannot blame Trump for coming up with this excuse, which President George H.W. Bush deployed against Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega without legal trouble or any serious political repercussions. Nor can we blame Trump for the legislative branch’s abdication of its responsibilities.”

https://reason.com/2026/01/07/the-law-enforcement-rationale-for-invading-venezuela-is-an-open-ended-license-for-war/

The U.S. Operation in Venezuela – Maduro’s Capture & what next for Venezuela?

Posted on by Lone Candle

The attack on Venezuela seems to have used a cyber attack to take out the city’s electricity and over 150 aircraft. The US suppressed Venezuelan anti-air capability by suppressing and destroying them. Many military targets were struck, most by relatively small and targeted weapons, and most anti-air assets. There wasn’t an attempt to more broadly destroy Venezuela’s military capabilities. The US may have used new one-way attack drones that are cheaper than missiles.

This US operation represents what is possible, but also required luck. Shoulder fired anti-air rockets were launched, and one helicopter was hit in the leg three time and still managed to land the helicopter on the attack. If those hits hit the helicopter or person a little differently, the operation may have gone differently. The US may have had to send more waves, giving Venezuela more time to respond. Success was not inevitable.

The Maduro regime is not gone. The US took the leader, but the rest of the regime stayed in place.

The attack was not authorized by Congress, and therefore unconstitutional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APmgHMDOObk

Venezuela strike marks a turning point for US cyber warfare

Posted on by Lone Candle

“Internet tracking group NetBlocks reported a loss of internet connectivity in Caracas that occurred around the same time as power cuts in the country. Venezuela’s electric energy ministry said Monday that power cuts in some areas of the country were due to U.S. attacks.

Chinese-made radar systems and Russian-made air defense systems were also reportedly disrupted during the strikes, hampering the Venezuelan government’s ability to effectively respond.

In a statement, a Space Command spokesperson declined to comment on details of its operations, but noted that “space-based capabilities such as Positioning, Navigation and Timing and satellite communications are foundational to all modern military activities,” and that “U.S. Space Command possesses the means and willingness to employ combat-credible capabilities that deter and counter our opponents.”

These efforts point to a more aggressive use of U.S. military technology and cyber expertise in foreign operations — a shift that the administration has repeatedly touted since Trump’s first term. In 2018, a classified national security policy memorandum was signed, expanding the Pentagon’s authorities to conduct offensive cyber strikes. This policy was later refined under the Biden administration.

Joshua Steinman, who served as senior director for cyber on the National Security Council under the first Trump administration, said that the Venezuela strikes demonstrate that the U.S. “is finally in a place where we can use cyber as a tool of national power.””

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/07/venezuela-us-cyber-warfare-00713507

Maduro Was the Easy Part | Interesting Times with Ross Douthat

Posted on by Lone Candle

Venezuela is a direct security threat to the United States because they cooperate militarily with countries like Iran who considered giving missiles to Venezuela that can hit the US.

Because the Maduro regime is still in charge in Venezuela, it seems likely that these military ties will continue, even if they take a temporary pause.

Venezuela isn’t simply ruled by a dictator or a military junta, but by criminals who are in criminal enterprises to get rich. That makes it harder to negotiate away the rulers because the government is actually run by criminals who want to maintain their criminal enterprises.

Venezuela is a more homogenous country than Iraq, and it has a history of democracy before the authoritarian socialists took over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prmIf9UMzFI

If the Syrian War Is Over, Why Are Americans Still Getting Killed in Syria?

Posted on by Lone Candle

“U.S. troops entered Syria to fight the Islamic State group, which lost its last territory in 2018. They stayed to counter Iranian forces, who were in Syria at the invitation of former leader Bashar al-Assad and were kicked out during the December 2024 revolution by the new Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa. The possibility of a Turkish invasion of Syria scuttled Trump’s first withdrawal attempt in October 2019, but that is unlikely now that Kurdish factions are negotiating peace with the Syrian and Turkish governments.

…

the Trump administration has been expanding rather than shrinking America’s military involvement in Syria. It recently began talks to build a new U.S. base right outside Damascus, the Syrian capital, ostensibly for peacekeeping between Syria and Israel.

Sharaa, eager to stay in Washington’s good graces, visited the White House in November 2025 and announced that he would be joining the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State group. Americans were suddenly patrolling alongside Syrian forces in areas they had never patrolled before, such as Palmyra, which Trump described on social media as “a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them.”

…

Cooperation with the new Syrian government may have looked like a relatively cost-free way to keep a U.S. foothold in Syria, but the incident in Palmyra shows that there is, in fact, a greater risk to American troops than the White House realized. Yet the administration is doubling down, arguing that the attack is actually a reason to stay in Syria.”

…

We’re told that American troops are in Syria to prevent “another costly, large-scale war,” but every time someone attacks those troops, we’re told the U.S. has to double down on its commitment to avoid humiliation—which will create more opportunities to attack Americans. And the Palmyra shooter is not the only Syrian who has a problem with the new government or its American backers.”

https://reason.com/2025/12/15/if-the-syrian-war-is-over-why-are-americans-still-getting-killed-in-syria/

Regime Changed?

Posted on by Lone Candle

“The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Bombing a foreign country’s capital and arresting its president are plainly acts of war that received no authorization from Congress. The Trump administration clearly seems to have violated the Constitution.

…

If Vance were correct, all any president would need to do to start a war is have his Justice Department file charges against a foreign leader. That’s hardly compatible with Congress controlling the power to initiate hostilities.

…

The most direct historical parallel to the Maduro operation would be the U.S. ouster of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega in 1989 after he stole an election and was indicted on drug smuggling charges.

But as Ilya Somin points out, there are some important legal differences. Panamanian forces had killed a U.S. Marine in the Panama Canal Zone and captured other U.S. citizens. Also, the Panamanian government declared war on the United States.”

https://reason.com/2026/01/05/regime-changed/