An Iraq War veteran explains how the catastrophic aftermath of U.S. regime change in Iraq makes him cautious about calls for intervention in Venezuela. He recounts meeting Yazidi survivors enslaved by ISIS and cites ongoing abuses in camps like al-Hol. While sympathetic to Venezuelans suffering under Nicolás Maduro, he warns that military action is unpredictable, can erode trust in the region, and that bypassing Congress sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power.
I Once Backed Regime Change in Iraq — Why That Makes Me Wary of Intervention in Venezuela
I Once Supported Regime Change in Iraq. That's Why Venezuela Worries Me.
I supported the humanitarian case for invading Iraq in 2002. I believed removing a brutal dictator could be a net good. What followed — civil war, mass death, the rise of extremist groups, genocide, widespread sexual violence and slavery — taught me how unpredictable and long-lasting the consequences of intervention can be.
Seventeen years after I convinced myself that toppling a dictator might be justified, I met a Yazidi woman in northern Iraq who had been enslaved by ISIS. I was on a United Nations fact-finding mission. She described to a room of foreign policy analysts how ISIS massacred people from her town and abducted girls, including her and her 13-year-old sister, into slavery. After the so-called caliphate collapsed, families linked to ISIS were relocated to al-Hol, a sprawling camp in Syria where survivors and perpetrators were forced to live side by side. A Yazidi smuggling network helped free her, but her sister remained trapped.
Nearby, children of displaced families played and sang to "Baby Shark." The man who ran the smuggling network asked bluntly,
"Why are we not having enough attention from your side? We have a high number of survivors, people in mass graves. Why don't we have assistance?"
Three years after that meeting, in 2022, a security operation in al-Hol found six girls chained and being abused — eight years after their capture. By then, reporting on the genocide had been available for years, but many Americans were exhausted by the never-ending horrors of Iraq and unwilling to face our share of responsibility.
Why Venezuela Gives Me Pause
Does that mean the same sequence of events will unfold in Venezuela? No — I cannot predict the future. But the Venezuelan government’s escalating crackdown, the jailing of journalists and the surveillance of activists’ social media are ominous early signs. Having studied the region and written about cross-border violence and the drug trade with Colombia, I know how quickly instability can cascade into widespread suffering.
Some Venezuelans I know hope for a transition like the post‑Trujillo shift in the Dominican Republic: initial control by figures tied to the dictator and gradual liberalization under foreign pressure. Yet as historian Mark Healey reminds us, that "relatively soft" transition still involved significant bloodshed, diplomatic crisis, multiple coups and a U.S. invasion. Such examples underscore that even seemingly mild outcomes can hide deep violence and long-term instability.
Power, Trust, And The Rule Of Law
Rather than offering a credible plan for a stable future, leadership on this issue has often relied on threats. President Donald Trump revived talk about taking Greenland from an ally and casually suggested military action in Colombia, saying, "Sounds good to me." Such rhetoric undermines trust across the hemisphere. Recent seizures of tankers and comments that imply naked appetite for oil further poison diplomatic goodwill.
Analyst Kori Schake argues that American influence after World War II was unusually effective because it rested on shared rules and voluntary cooperation: "No dominant power...has ever had so much assistance from others in maintaining its dominance." If the only tool is coercion, U.S. power will become both weaker and morally diminished.
The Bigger Danger: Unchecked Executive Force
My deepest worry is less a single intervention in Venezuela than what a successful, unilateral military action might embolden an unrestrained president to do next. In his first year back in office, the administration struck targets in Iran and Venezuela without seeking congressional authorization. That bypasses the democratic process our founders entrusted to the legislature for the gravest decision a nation can make: going to war.
How often will such risks be taken? If we permit an executive to initiate military action without debate or legal authorization, the whims of one reckless leader could create catastrophe on a scale that unfolds long after the headlines fade.
Note: This piece originally appeared on Reason.com.
Help us improve.
