As the U.S. conducts airstrikes against vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, tensions around Venezuela are escalating. Recently, Senator Lindsey Graham mentioned the possibility of land strikes in Venezuela as part of a strategy to combat drug trafficking. He asserted that President Trump believes Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro is a significant threat needing to be addressed.
Trump claimed that airstrikes have reduced drug trafficking by 95% from the previous year, but he has not provided specific evidence to support this. In the past few weeks, at least 43 people have died in these strikes, leading Colombia to urge the U.S. to adhere to international law.
Graham emphasized that upcoming Congressional briefings will clarify these military actions, distinguishing them from an outright invasion. He drew parallels to past U.S. interventions, such as the 1989 invasion of Panama, which did not seek Congressional approval.
Though Graham feels confident in the administration’s authority to act, some lawmakers, including Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego, have strongly criticized the military actions. Gallego referred to the strikes as “murder,” arguing that if these operations are military actions, Congress should be consulted.
This ongoing discussion reflects a wider concern about U.S. military involvement in Latin America, echoing historical interventions. Major military actions often stir debates about their legality and effectiveness, highlighting the challenge of navigating international relations while addressing domestic security issues.
For further insights on U.S. military operations and their implications, check resources from the Council on Foreign Relations.
