Q&A of the Day – Why Maduro’s Ouster Will Prove to Be Successful - What History Shows About U.S. Prompted Regime Changes
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station page in the iHeart app.
Today’s entry: Submitted via talkback: Can you go ahead and list all of the countries that it’s actually worked? I mean, I think you said Panama. Anything else?
Bottom Line: Today’s note is in response to yesterday’s Q&A - Maduro’s Removal & Venezuela’s Future - in which I said this... While there are still more questions than answers about what exactly will happen in terms of transitional leadership from here it’s important to note that the United States has a far better history at removing dictators than not. The perception to the contrary is a case of recency bias. I then explained that the removal of Maduro was most similar to 1989’s removal of Manuel Noriega in Panama because like Maduro, Noreiga had outstanding arrest warrants in the U.S., was arrested, brought to the U.S., tried and convicted. Meanwhile, Panama’s future became far brighter following Noriega’s ouster.
Following the multi-decade commitments and outcomes with the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, many are understandably skeptical of the United States getting involved in the ouster of a foreign head of state and transition of power. However, as mentioned, whether you agree with the Trump administration's decision to travel down this path with Venezuela, our country’s history with this sort of thing is exceedingly positive. In answer to today’s question here’s the breakout of countries/territories the U.S. has directly had a hand in forcing regime change in and whether the effort was successful:
- Hawaii (1893) - Yes
- Italy (1943) - Yes
- Germany (1945) - Yes
- Japan (1945) - Yes
- Iran (1953) - Yes
- Guatemala (1954) - Yes
- Dominican Republic (1961) - Yes
- South Vietnam (1963) - No
- Brazil (1964) - Yes
- Chile (1973) - Yes
- Grenada (1983) - Yes
- Panama (1989) - Yes
- Afghanistan (2001) - No
- Iraq (2003) - No
- Libya (2011) - No
If you’re keeping score, that’s 11 successful endeavors compared to four relative failures – with three of those four happening to be the most recent U.S. interventions preceding the current ouster of Maduro which is in part why many are leery of this type of thing. In the interest of brevity, I’ll not breakdown each of the circumstances surrounding successful efforts and unsuccessful efforts, however I will highlight the similarities between successful U.S. provoked regime changes and those that have not worked as planned.
Each of the historically successful U.S. campaigns to oust foreign leaders were either the result of U.S. and allied actions during World War II or were the result of brief targeted campaigns to remove a rouge leader with no sustained military commitment. Each of the four failed regime changes were sustained wars the U.S. either chose to enter – in the case of civil wars in Vietnam and Libya, or the sustained “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What the Trump administration has carried out follows a roadmap that’s been successful eight out of eight times previously. There isn’t a declared U.S. war in Venezuela, U.S. boots aren’t on the ground serving as defacto law enforcement, and importantly, the people of Venezuela overwhelmingly are supportive – which is the key to long term stability and success with regime change. So, about that point, as that will ultimately prove to be the most pivotal cog in long-term sustainability in regime change.
In 2012, the final year of Hugo Chavez’s reign prior to his death leading to the ascent of his handpicked successor Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela's per capita GDP stood at $12,690 (US) - the equivalent of $17,915 in today’s dollars. By 2024 per capita GDP had fallen to $4,510. The current estimated per capita GDP in Venezuela is estimated to be $2,970. Imagine trying to live on under three thousand dollars per year. The collapse of the country’s economy is why so many have fled the country over the past couple of decades.
To simply recover from the damage of Maduro’s communistic policies would result in a standard of living that’s 6-times greater than the current economic reality. And with Venezuela having the world’s largest oil reserves, it’s extremely doable. Most importantly, for U.S. interests – it’s critical long term for Venezuela to have a leader that’s aligned with U.S. interests over the interests China and Russia which was the case under Maduro.
As I mentioned yesterday, there are many reasons as to why President Trump made the decision to move forward with this operation. Maduro was a wanted felon in the U.S., Venezuela was responsible for about 30% of the illicit drug trade into the U.S., U.S. companies had assets seized and stolen from them through nationalization. Venezuela has the capacity to produce greater than x the amount of oil it currently produces which would create energy price stability and permanently lower energy costs in the U.S. and around the world. The most important of all is for that China and Russia not to have a permanent foothold in Venezuela and Cuba – controlling the energy out of that country but also basing military operations in this hemisphere.
President Trump’s highly successful history in using brief and convincing force to exact desired outcomes, with the successful history of similar regime changes, provides ample reason to be optimistic about the outcome of this operation.