A Fox News discussion began with host Neil Cavuto saying, “It could be time for U.S. involvement in Venezuela,” and Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) claiming we should “absolutely” “look at our military” forcing “humanitarian” regime change. Sound familiar?
Cavuto’s first question to Scott was whether sending troops to Venezuela would "make a difference?"
"Oh, absolutely,” Scott insisted. “I was down the Venezuelan border last Wednesday. This is just pure genocide. [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro is killing his own citizens."
Scott all but announced the U.S. would be greeted "as liberators" and with “sweets and flowers.” Scott said, "I met moms that lived on the street, that had to walk hours to get food in Colombia, with schoolchildren coming, walking hours to go to school each day."
"Clearly we've got to look at our military going and taking the humanitarian in there to stop the death just through starvation," Scott continued. He said he's "hopeful" for a leadership change, adding, "I hope Russia and China understand they are supporting a murderer, a thug, somebody that's committing genocide against poor little children."
Cavuto put forth some challenge: "Is it worth, however strongly you feel, sir, losing American men and women to do just that?"
Instead of the “mushroom cloud” fear mongering, we got the old “domino theory” fear mongering.
"If we don't win today, we are going to have Syria in this hemisphere,” Scott warned. “Russia's there, China’s there, Hezbollah’s there, Iran’s there, Cuba’s there. … We can either make sure something happens now or we can deal with this for decades to come. … Look at how many people lost their lives in Syria, and look at how much unrest it created in that entire area, that’s exactly what's going to happen in South and Central America."
Cavuto still sounded skeptical. "There are, I think about 100 retired generals, colonels from Venezuela who are in Colombia right now. Do you think that those folks working with the Colombians might be a better strategy for us?" he asked.
"Everybody's got to work with us, it shouldn't just be the United States," Scott replied, suggesting he’s willing to start some kind of world war. He called on all democracies to “step up” and help the U.S. "We need to use all of our resources to get all these countries to be supportive," he said ominously.
Scott said he has “all along” been in contact with both Trump and John Bolton. "The president all along has understood that all options have to be on the table," Scott claimed.
Ironically, a graphic on the right said, "U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton said the Trump administration wants to see a peaceful transition of power.' Not exactly what would happen if Scott has his way.
Foreign Affairs, not exactly a hotbed of radical liberalism, paints a picture of military involvement in Venezuela as similar to what happened in Iraq:
There’s no such thing as risk-free military action. But in this case, the social, economic, and security costs of intervening far outweigh the benefits. Whether the United States launched limited air strikes or a full ground invasion, it would almost certainly get sucked in to a long, difficult campaign to stabilize Venezuela after the initial fighting was over. Such an engagement would cost American lives and money and hurt the United States’ standing in Latin America. An extended occupation would reignite anti-Americanism in the region, particularly if U.S. soldiers committed real or perceived abuses, and it would damage U.S. relations with countries outside the region, too.
Watch Scott hawk a war like it's 2003 all over again, from the April 30, 2019 Your World with Neil Cavuto.
I have trouble getting my head around the Syria comparison, too. But I think Scott meant that there would be a bunch of super powers interfering in what would seem to be a localized conflict. But that still doesn’t explain why we should get involved. If Scott cares so much about humanitarian aid for children, he could start with migrant children who keep dying at our border and those needlessly separated from their parents. It would be so much cheaper and nobody would get killed.
Was America’s goal in Syria humanitarian relief? Hardly. Was America’s goal in Syria regime change? I’m sure we’d like to get rid of Assad but never did we attempt it or set it as a goal. Syria was part of our war on terror since ISIS was hiding out there. All we wanted to do was kill ISIS while letting Russia-backed Assad do whatever atrocities against his people he saw fit. Trump is leaving Syria a violent and humanitarian disaster with the corrupt strongman still in power.
There is no ISIS in Venezuela. Venezuela is not poised to become another Syria as Scott imagines.
At one point Scott seems to indicate we need to send military simply to support humanitarian aid efforts which Maduro opposes as his people suffer. That might make sense especially if a regional coalition assists. It could avoid getting pulled into a nation building role, something we suck at. But Scott talks of forcing regime change and his comparisons to Syria makes me think he sees a more aggressive military role. F—k that!
An amusing side note is Scott’s talk of Bolton and Trump like they’re working hand in hand on a Venezuela strategy. As news reports pointed out late last week pro-Putin Trump completely pulled the rug out from under Bolton’s (and Pompeo’s) recent statements on Venezuela and Russian involvement.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-putin-venezuela-contradicting-aides/story?id=62808580