[nospice]

I don't think you can meaningfully answer this without knowing the military goals or the ultimate outcome.

The worst-case outcome for the US is that it gets pulled into another unpopular, long-term conflict that undermines its international standing and allows assorted rogues to advance their goals (Ukraine, Taiwan, who knows what else).

The best-case outcome is that this is a successful regime change operation which nets the US a resource-rich trading partner, undermines Russia, and scares Iran. How you assess the likelihood of these outcomes sort of depends on your priors.

I would say, however, that the recent history of US military interventions doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. Venezuela is nowhere near being the cluster---- that we've dealt in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc, but who knows.

[energy123]

> Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria

There are 2 differences that stand out.

Intelligence seems more capable nowadays compared to 2003, probably due to better cyber/SIGINT. It took 3 years for the coalition to find Saddam despite a large ground presence. I wouldn't give Maduro more than a month if the US was intent on taking him out, after the capabilities that we saw in Iran and South Lebanon the last two years that simply did not exist 2 decades ago. For the first time, war has been inverted, and it's the regime that dies first instead of the soldiers.

Second difference is the absence of political Islamism as a dominant ideology in the culture. This makes it more comparable to regime change wars against Japan and Germany in WW2 than recent wars in MENA.

[energy123]

> Intelligence seems more capable nowadays compared to 2003

And would you look at that, Maduro has already been captured after 3 hours. This is why it categorically not like Iraq 2003.

[rasz]

Give it some time. They might dropship Eric Trump tomorrow pronouncing him new leader of Venezuela.

[ogogmad]

What about radical communism as a binding ideology instead of radical Islamism? I swear that I've heard during at least 5 different wars in my lifetime that things would turn out differently. And I'm not old. Now I want consequences.

[energy123]

I could say the same thing about radical fascism in Germany and Japan, and yet.

Historically, fascism and authoritarianism communism have been temporary secular hysterias that come and go. Ukraine post-Maidan, for example, embraced democracy because they tried communism already and learned that it sucks.

Islamism seems more potent and durable and always rears its head in instability like in Bangladesh most recently, or the Arab Spring before. My explanation for this durability is that it is tied in with religion and is believed to be divinely ordained, rather than just a human made system that sucks.

This is unlike Christianity which is structurally secular by doctrine ('render unto Caesar').

[ogogmad]

> Islamism seems more potent and durable and always rears its head in instability like in Bangladesh most recently, or the Arab Spring before. My explanation for this durability is that it is tied in with religion and is believed to be divinely ordained, rather than just a human made system that sucks. > This is unlike Christianity which is structurally secular by doctrine ('render unto Caesar').

That's historical crackpottery. Christianity went through two centuries of religious warfare starting in the early 1500s, with the German population suffering a per-capita death toll higher than WW2. Before that, it launched centuries-long crusades into the Middle East - at some point wiping out the non-Christian people of the city of Jerusalem, which was, and eventually returned to being, a multi-religious city under Muslim rule.

Radical Islamism has only existed since 1979 because of the Iranian revolution. It looks like it's on the decline now. It might have only emerged because of failed efforts at modernising. Europe and the West might have only lapped MENA because they were geographically well-placed to pillage the Americas - not because of any cultural superiority.

[EDIT: I've just read over this, and I'd like to clarify that I like Christianity and Christians in many respects, even though I'm not a Christian myself. I also like the modern West. I just hate lying, hypocritical, cowardly, proud and murderous xenophobes like you]

> I could say the same thing about radical fascism in Germany and Japan, and yet.

Germany and Japan stopped being fascist because nobody was going to let them go back to gassing people.

[energy123]

I'm sorry that I spoke so uncarefully as to cause this reaction in you. I did not knowingly lie, although I may be wrong about many things. I will try to speak with more care next time, especially on topics related to people's identities, which is understandably a sensitive area of discussion that can contribute to fears even if that is not the intention. The world definitely doesn't need more xenophobia on social media.

[cyberax]

There is zero actual radical communism in Venezuela at this point.

[OgsyedIE]

What about the chance of a Colombian, Bolivian, Ecuadorian or Brazilian missile crisis?

[drnick1]

> The best-case outcome is that this is a successful regime change operation which nets the US a resource-rich trading partner, undermines Russia, and scares Iran.

There is no need to scare Iran. The mullahs are already scared shitless and were utterly humiliated this summer. They could have easily been removed, but it was decided that it was not worth it, as the next regime could be even worse. A weak, scared Iran is the best outcome.