“`html
venezuela and the Noriega Precedent: Is the U.S. drawing Up a Playbook for Intervention?
The U.S. is increasingly signaling a potential willingness to intervene – either militarily or through covert action – in Venezuela, ostensibly to dismantle drug trafficking networks and possibly remove the country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, from power. This echoes a strategy employed decades ago, raising critical questions about the viability and potential consequences of repeating past interventions.
The current situation is drawing comparisons to the late 1980s,when the administration of President George H.W. Bush targeted Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a long-time critic of Maduro, has reportedly framed the situation as an “imminent threat” to American security, suggesting a window for action. Maduro, widely accused of fraudulently securing his most recent election victory, is preparing his forces to resist potential U.S. involvement.
However, the specter of past interventions – especially the prolonged and destabilizing conflicts in iraq and Afghanistan following 9/11 – serves as a stark warning. While those later operations also initially drew from the “panama model,” their ultimate outcomes underscore the dangers of ill-defined objectives and protracted engagements.
From CIA Asset to Enemy of the State: The Noriega Story
The relationship between the U.S. and Manuel Noriega was complex and decades-long. Beginning in the 1950s, the CIA recruited Noriega as a paid informant, leveraging his connections to counter communist influence in the region. He became a key asset in confronting Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Nicaragua’s Sandinistas, receiving training at the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, and significant financial support – reportedly $110,000 annually by the mid-1970s. Even the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) initially found him useful in targeting smaller-scale drug dealers within Panama.
Despite this alliance, Noriega proved to be an unreliable partner. While on the U.S. payroll, he reportedly provided intelligence to Castro and facilitated arms shipments to Marxist insurgent groups. Simultaneously, he amassed a vast personal fortune – estimated at $800 million by the late 1980s – through his ties to Colombian drug cartels. As Panama’s top military officer, he oversaw the repression of political opposition and rigged the 1989 presidential election, prompting the U.S. to finally turn against him.
Operation Just cause: A Swift and Decisive Intervention
In December 1989, President Bush authorized Operation Just Cause, a full-scale invasion of Panama aimed at removing Noriega from power. The operation involved over 20,000 U.S. troops and was characterized by its speed and decisiveness. Within hours, U.S. forces secured key objectives, including the presidential palace and Noriega’s headquarters. the operation resulted in relatively few U.S. casualties – 18 killed and 325 wounded – but an estimated 500 Panamanian civilians and soldiers were killed.
Noriega, after initially seeking refuge in the vatican embassy, eventually surrendered and was brought to the United States to stand trial on drug trafficking charges. He was convicted in 1992 and sentenced to 40 years in prison. The Panama intervention was widely hailed as a success, demonstrating the U.S.’s ability to project power and remove a hostile leader. The approach was heavily influenced by the thinking of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, who advocated for decisive interventions with attainable goals. As Powell later reflected,”Nobody even remembers the Panama war…But I viewed it as the template of how we should do things.”
Lessons from the Past: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Limits of Intervention
The Panama model also informed President Bush’s strategy during the first Gulf War in 1991, with a clear objective of liberating Kuwait. However, the subsequent interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq following 9/11 demonstrated the pitfalls of pursuing broader, less defined goals. Unlike his father’s focused approach,President George W. Bush embraced more ambitious objectives, leading to prolonged and ultimately destabilizing conflicts.
This historical contrast is particularly relevant to the current situation in Venezuela. Maduro shares similarities with Noriega, suppressing dissent, interfering in elections, and exhibiting hostility towards democratic principles. The U.S. has already indicted Maduro and members of his regime on drug trafficking and “narco-terrorism” charges. While maduro’s ideology differs from Noriega’s, and he lacked the early courtship from Washington that Noriega enjoyed, he has demonstrated a similar disregard for human rights and a penchant for anti-American rhetoric.
