Trump's declaration that "we’re going to run Venezuela" is alarming. We tried that in Vietnam. It didn’t work
Squelching the drug traffic coming out of Venezuela is one thing, trying to take over and “run” that country, as Trump promised last Friday, is another.
First off, capturing the indicted Venezuelan President Maduro and bringing him to the U.S. to face charges has its rationale and precedent. It follows a similar occurrence in Panama more than 30 years ago. That was when the first Bush administration snatched Panama’s dictator Manuel Noriega to face trial – and conviction – after his indictment for drug charges in the United States.
That part of the process initiated by Trump’s decision to capture Maduro is something understandable and acceptable to me.
As a returning Vietnam vet in the 1960s and early 70s, I was aware of the extent and damage that drug abuse did to my generation of Americans, including some I knew personally. They survived the war but succumbed to the aftermath and were dead before they entered the prime of their lives, done in by drugs.
Memories of those post-Vietnam experiences with the drug scene make me OK with Trump’s decision to capture Maduro. But it’s another set of memories and experiences, the ones gained during my participation as a Marine in the war itself, that make me recoil at our president’s intention to “run Venezuela.”
The U.S. did not technically “run” South Vietnam during the course (1955-1975) of the war. The South Vietnamese actually had something they called a government, but it was ineffectual and riddled with corruption. It was the massive American presence (peaking at more than 500,000 troops in 1969) that kept South Vietnam’s poor excuse for a government in place.
Problem was, our presence was heavy-handed and was not widely supported by the people of Vietnam — and this is where Trump’s vision of running Venezuela could go awry. Venezuelans might not be too keen on having their country micro-managed by the United States.
In Vietnam, we were oblivious to the fact that our aims were not supported locally. What the U.S. couldn’t accomplish by persuasion, it tried to do by force. If Trump meets up with indifference or outright resistance in Venezuela, I doubt that force will be effective. It certainly didn’t work in Vietnam.
Clearly, Trump’s projected venture into Venezuela falls far short of anything like a suggestion of war, but its underlying premise that Venezuelans will fall in line and cooperate is fallacious and potentially dangerous.
If Venezuelans resist Trump’s declaration that “we’re going to run Venezuela” and collectively retort, by rhetoric and deed, “no you’re not,” what do we do? Do we put troops on the ground to enforce Trump’s zeal to run the country?
Good morning, Vietnam.
My allusion goes perhaps too far, but this is why I got the shivers when I watched Trump’s press conference shortly after the capture of Maduro. Trump made a condescending promise to run Venezuela for the good of the Venezuelan people. The intent might be genuine, but it smacks of the hubris that eventually sank our venture in Vietnam.
We’d be far better off to let a post-Maduro government materialize and see how things shake out before announcing, right off the bat, that we are going to run Venezuela.
John Tsitrian is a businessman and writer from the Black Hills. He was a weekly columnist for the Rapid City Journal for 20 years. His articles and commentary have also appeared in The Los Angeles Times, The Denver Post and The Omaha World-Herald. Tsitrian served in the Marines for three years (1966-69), including a 13-month tour of duty as a radioman in Vietnam. Republish with permission.
Phot0: public domain, wikimedia commons
The South Dakota Standard is offered freely and is supported by our readers. We have no political or commercial sponsorship. If you'd like to help us continue our mission to advance independent political and social commentary, you can do so by clicking on the "Donate" button that's on the sidebar to your right.
