Senator Rubio has been outspoken on the topic of Venezuela. Now, junior Senator Rick Scott joins him.
bear with my hyperbolic title. The
DailyCaller reported that Senator Rick Scott put forth some new ideas for
how to handle the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.
a tweet on Wednesday, Scott said, “People are suffering. People are dying. In
our hemisphere. On our watch. The aid in this warehouse can feed 30,000 people
for 10 days, but Maduro’s blocking it. It’s clear that we’ll have to consider
American military assets to deliver aid. [Maduro] has left us no choice.”
The language coming from
Florida presents us with some challenging national security considerations. The DailyCaller says this, “Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has also expressed
increasingly strong support for Guiado, calling the situation a national
security threat, but has stopped short of calling for a military intervention.”
How do we navigate these
One says it’s a
humanitarian crisis warranting military intervention.
The other says it’s a
national security threat not warranting military intervention.
I get the feeling that some
want the US military to be an armed Red Cross.
Scott says he wants to military to intervene in order to deliver
aid. Could you imagine Eisenhower
invading China to deliver aid to victims of the Great Leap Forward Famine? An
unwanted military presence will escalate to war.
Now, if we are talking something along the
lines of a Berlin Airlift, okay, we can discuss that, but these Senators come
off as Cold War nostalgics. They are
looking to play with the American Military, in opposition to a non-existent
evil empire, while trying to avoid actual war.
Rubio’s characterization of
this crisis illustrates that nostalgia. Using mental gymnastics akin to
commerce clause case law, the national security threat is whatever Rubio wants
it to be. Anything can be argued to threaten
our national security just as anything can be argued to have an effect on
These Senators are conflating the Truman and Monroe Doctrines. Look, I have no problem if someone wants to argue that we should intervene in every humanitarian crisis or in every scenario where our security is threatened. There is consistency in that goal even if it might be disagreeable.
As various pundits and
politicians have pointed out, voters have rejected the policies of perpetual
war and nation building.
Yet Senators Rubio and
Scott insist upon wasting our time with endless denunciations of dictatorships.
We get it, the situation in Venezuela sucks. Right now, the United States government
shouldn’t care inasmuch as we have our own problems to worry about.
By my estimation, Iraq was
the last time the United States successfully engaged in regime change. While the war was bungled after Saddam was
removed, the initial success has largely been ignored. Ann Coulter has summarized her feeling about
the war in this way…it was a good idea, executed well, but it was left to be
handled by individuals who would squander success. Since Iraq poisoned the
regime change well and since the international norms of war have changed,
military intervention seems pointless.
While bold individuals may suggest propping up Pinochet-types for a time, we are left with these realities:
1: Assassinations are out.
2: Coups are out.
3: Interference in foreign
elections is out.
4: Regime change wars, even
in pursuit of national security and humanitarian causes, are out.
The only solution then is a
form of isolationism or a bold and ruthless plan to bring the world into
alignment with our interests, international repercussions be damned.
Middle ground results in
fickle idealism a la Obama or a weak and uncommitted realism like the Rubios of
the world. Neither of which have any capacity to achieve goals in peace or war.
Commit to the concerns of
your people and ignore the rest of the world.
Or commit to the rightness of your cause and carry it out.
Don’t hem and haw about
what constitutes a humanitarian or national security crisis in a country on a