Helsing posted:

I have no faith in a military invasion's ability to improve the situation in Venezuela but as I previously explained that's not specific to any one country, that's a more general problem with state building in general. There is no short term solution, at best there's various forms of harm reduction you might practice. An actual invasion that removes the government from power would lead to a civil war which would further destroy the economy and depress living standards even more. If it got bad enough it might lead to the de facto dissolution of the country. We're not talking the difference between one dictator and another, we're talking about the difference between a repressive state and a failed one.

The middle point is probably something extremely boring like unconditional aid and technical assistance which would inevitably help the government hold onto power but which would at least mitigate the suffering of the people. It wouldn't be morally satisfying to you in the way ousting Maduro would be but from the most strictly utilitarian terms it'd likely be the best outcome for the moment. Any resistance the government might initially put up toward such aid would be easier to overcome than the proposed alternative of a literal invasion: even if half or two thirds of every shipment goes directly to feathering the bed of some government functionary or local gang leader, that would still be a vastly better solution to the problem than a foreign power invading and occupying, and the US could easily afford to adsorb such losses. While this wouldn't solve every problem, and would actually create some new problems (hooking a country on foreign aid is not good for the local economy) it would be the fastest, most humane and most effective way to alleviate suffering, and then you could figure out the details of how to disengage later once the immediate crisis conditions have abated.

Of course this idea seems completely implausible to everyone because deep down we all recognize that any intervention that isn't predicated on using force to advance American state interests is a total none starter. The idea that America might creatively use its wealth to achieve a none military solution sounds insane because we all know American doesn't act out of humanitarian calculations. But perhaps as an exercise it is worth remembering that if someone actually cared about people's suffering and wanted to use the power of the American state to do something about it there would be way better ways to accomplish that goal than invading other countries.