The Imperial Script, Why Venezuela is the Latest Stage for a Tired and Tragic Play

The recent American military strikes in Venezuela, justified under the banner of combating “narcotics terrorism,” have reignited a global debate that feels both eerily familiar and profoundly urgent. As Manav Sachdeva compellingly argues, this intervention is not an isolated event but the latest scene in a centuries-old play—a “familiar, dismal script of imperial overreach.” This script, performed by successive great powers under different flags and with different rhetoric, follows a tragically consistent arc: a moral or strategic imperative is declared, military force is deployed as a corrective, and the ensuing chaos reveals the fundamental delusion at the heart of the enterprise—that societies can be engineered, and sovereignty violated, from the outside. The crisis in Venezuela, a nation already shattered by domestic tyranny and economic collapse, now risks being compounded by the entry of an external actor whose history suggests it will exacerbate the suffering it claims to alleviate.

The Moral Veneer and the Imperial Impulse

The justification for intervention is always cloaked in the language of necessity. In Venezuela, the framing is “narcotics terrorism,” a potent fusion of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. This rhetoric serves a dual purpose: it simplifies a complex humanitarian and political catastrophe into a manageable security threat, and it provides a morally unimpeachable casus belli. The world is presented with a binary: action against a narco-state, or complicity in its crimes.

This pattern is a hallmark of imperial action. From the mission civilisatrice of European colonizers to the “spreading of democracy” in the Middle East, hegemons have consistently dressed expansion and control in the garb of altruism. As Sachdeva notes, the vocabulary shifts—”counterinsurgency,” “humanitarian rescue,” “narcotics interdiction”—but the underlying impulse remains constant: the assertion of control over a foreign polity deemed deviant or dangerous. The intervening power appoints itself as the arbiter of another nation’s destiny, interpreting its crisis through the narrow prism of its own strategic anxieties (migration flows, drug trafficking, regional influence).

The tragedy of Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro is real and profound. It is a story of brutal oppression, hyperinflation, mass exodus, and the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions. To acknowledge this reality, however, is not to endorse military strikes as a solution. In fact, history’s ledger is filled with the bloody receipts of such interventions, where the cure has proven far deadlier than the disease.

The American Repertoire: A Litany of Unlearned Lessons

The United States, as the predominant power of the post-Cold War era, provides the most extensive modern case studies in this script. Each intervention begins with soaring rhetoric and ends in a quagmire, revealing the limits of raw military power to shape political realities.

Vietnam: A war fought to contain communism became a brutal counterinsurgency that devastated Southeast Asia and fractured American society. The lesson that a superpower could be bled dry by a determined nationalist movement was written in blood, yet remained unabsorbed.
Iraq (2003): The toppling of Saddam Hussein, justified by (non-existent) WMDs and democratic idealism, unleashed sectarian hell, gave birth to ISIS, and destabilized an entire region for a generation. The fantasy of a quick, clean regime change collided with the complex tapestry of Iraqi society.
Afghanistan: A 20-year, trillion-dollar nation-building project evaporated in days as the U.S.-backed government folded before the Taliban. The mission morphed from counter-terrorism to state-building and back again, achieving none of its core objectives.
Libya & Syria: Limited interventions and proxy wars created power vacuums filled by warlords and jihadists, leading to humanitarian disasters and protracted civil conflicts.

In every case, the initial “surgical” action gave way to mission creep, unforeseen consequences, and a painful exit. The U.S. repeatedly discovered, as Sachdeva writes, that “invading, reshaping, or ‘managing’ another society produces outcomes it neither anticipates nor is prepared to own.” The strikes in Venezuela represent the opening of a potential new chapter in this grim anthology, risking entanglement in a fractured, geographically complex nation that neither Washington nor its populace has the stomach to rebuild.

The Universal Pathology: Beyond American Exceptionalism

To focus solely on the United States, however, is to miss the broader, more alarming pathology. Sachdeva correctly identifies the same imperial impulse in the actions of other aspiring hegemons. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a textbook example of imperial overreach, driven by a nostalgic belief in spheres of influence and historical entitlement. The Kremlin’s narrative of protecting ethnic Russians and rectifying historical wrongs mirrors the civilizing missions of empires past. The result has not been a swift victory but a grinding war of attrition, a strengthened NATO, global economic disruption, and generational trauma for Ukraine. Moscow, like Washington before it, is learning that modern nationalism is a potent force, and that cities can be reduced to rubble but a people’s will cannot be decreed into submission.

China’s strategy, while predominantly economic and diplomatic, carries its own imperial characteristics. The Belt and Road Initiative creates dependencies, the suppression of Uyghurs and Tibetans demonstrates a refusal to tolerate pluralism, and its claims in the South China Sea assert control over international waters. It represents a 21st-century model of hegemony, one that seeks control through debt and infrastructure rather than direct military occupation, but whose goal—the subordination of peripheral regions to a central authority—is fundamentally imperial.

The flags and methods differ, but the “same pathology” is at work: the belief that a powerful state has the right, even the duty, to impose its order on others. Empires, as Sachdeva observes, “imagine themselves as engineers of stability.” They are perpetually surprised when the societies they seek to control prove stubborn, chaotic, and resistant to their blueprints.

The Venezuelan Crucible: A Trap in the Making

Into this dynamic steps Venezuela, a nation that is both uniquely vulnerable and politically toxic. The Maduro regime is a legitimate source of suffering for its people. Yet, the U.S. strikes and the alignment with figures like opposition leader María Corina Machado, who has openly praised interventionist rhetoric, create a dangerous binary. It risks framing the nation’s future as a choice between a domestic dictator and a foreign-backed alternative, sidelining the diverse spectrum of Venezuelan civil society whose buy-in is essential for any legitimate recovery.

This is the familiar trap of “choosing sides” that has backfired so spectacularly elsewhere. In Afghanistan, the U.S. propped up a corrupt, Kabul-centric government that lacked broad legitimacy. In Syria, backing various opposition groups fueled the war and empowered extremists. In Venezuela, anointing a favored opposition figure and coupling her cause with military action may only cement her image as a foreign proxy in the eyes of many Venezuelans, strengthening Maduro’s narrative of resisting Yankee imperialism.

The path forward, as Sachdeva implies, must privilege “a far greater set of Venezuelan voices, regional diplomacy, and international frameworks.” This means:

Elevating Venezuelan Agency: Solutions must be Venezuelan-led. This requires engaging with a broader opposition, elements of civil society, and even factions within Chavismo open to a negotiated transition.
Empowering Regional Diplomacy: Latin American countries, through bodies like CELAC or the Contact Group, have a vested interest in a stable, democratic Venezuela and should lead the mediation efforts, free from the distorting shadow of great power rivalry.
Utilizing International Law: The UN and other multilateral forums, for all their flaws, provide a better platform for applying pressure (through targeted sanctions, ICC investigations into crimes against humanity) than unilateral military action.
Addressing the Humanitarian Catastrophe: Decoupling humanitarian aid from political objectives is critical to alleviating suffering without fueling conflict.

The Imperial Imagination and the Quest for a Post-Imperial World

The strikes in Venezuela, therefore, are a symptom of a deeper, more pervasive disorder: the imperial imagination. This is the mindset that divides the world into spheres of influence, sees sovereign nations as pieces on a grand chessboard, and believes complex political pathologies can be solved with military force or economic coercion. It is an imagination that is fundamentally at odds with the principles of a multilateral, rules-based international order it claims to uphold.

As Sachdeva concludes, if we are serious about peace—whether in Caracas, Kyiv, Gaza, or elsewhere—the critique must transcend geography and target this underlying pathology. The problem is not simply American overreach or Russian aggression or Chinese expansionism. The problem is the enduring belief that any state, by virtue of its power, possesses the wisdom and right to dictate the fate of others.

The 21st century’s defining challenge may be whether humanity can move beyond this ancient, bloody script. It requires recognizing that security is collective, that sovereignty is sacrosanct, and that the only legitimate transformations of a society are those willed by its own people. The empires of history all eventually choked on the consequences of their ambition. The task now is to ensure that in their final, overlapping acts, they do not take the rest of the world down with them. Venezuela, in its agony, offers yet another chance to learn this oldest of lessons—before the next chapter of the dismal script is written.

Q&A: Unpacking Imperial Overreach and the Venezuela Crisis

Q1: The article argues that imperial overreach is a universal pathology, not just an American one. How do the imperial impulses of the US, Russia, and China differ in their modern manifestations?
A: While the core impulse—asserting control beyond one’s borders—is similar, the methodologies reflect their historical context and strengths:

United States: Employs a military-humanitarian hybrid model. It combines overwhelming conventional military force (shock and awe, drone strikes) with a rhetoric of democratization and liberal order-building. Its overreach is often characterized by initial regime-change operations followed by protracted, failing attempts at nation-building, as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Russia: Practices neo-revanchist militarism. Its imperialism is driven by a perceived loss of empire and a desire to reclaim a sphere of influence. It uses limited but brutal military interventions (Georgia, Ukraine, Syria) coupled with cyber-warfare, disinformation, and the exploitation of ethnic ties. Its goal is less about building a new model and more about destabilizing neighbors, blocking Western expansion, and reasserting regional dominance.
China: Pioneers asymmetric, economic imperialism. Its primary tool is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), creating debt dependency and strategic leverage through infrastructure loans. It supplements this with ideological influence, technological surveillance exports, and incremental militarization (South China Sea). Its overreach is slower and more economic, but aims at creating a Sino-centric global system where political compliance follows financial dependence.

Q2: The author mentions that supporting figures like María Corrina Machado could be counterproductive. Why is backing a specific opposition leader often a flawed strategy for external powers?
A: Backing a specific leader creates several perverse outcomes:

Undermines Legitimacy: It taints the leader as a foreign puppet or proxy, eroding their domestic credibility. This allows the regime (like Maduro’s) to delegitimize the entire opposition by framing the conflict as one of national sovereignty against imperialism.
Simplifies Complex Politics: It reduces a multifaceted national struggle, involving various parties, social movements, and civil society groups, into a binary fight between the regime and the “anointed” alternative. This marginalizes other voices and potential compromise solutions.
Creates a “Hotel Government”: The backed leader may become more accountable to their foreign patrons (for funding, political support) than to their own populace, leading to a government disconnected from local realities, as seen with Ashraf Ghani in Afghanistan.
Obstructs Negotiation: It hardens positions. The regime refuses to negotiate with a “traitor,” and the backed leader, reliant on external support, may reject compromises necessary for a political settlement.

Q3: The piece suggests multilateral diplomacy is preferable to unilateral strikes. Given the UN’s frequent paralysis, particularly regarding Venezuela, what would effective regional diplomacy look like in this case?
A: Effective regional diplomacy would need to be patient, pragmatic, and led by Latin American states themselves, potentially involving:

A Unified Regional Front: Key players like Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina would need to forge a common position, isolating Venezuela diplomatically and economically until it engages seriously in talks, without resorting to U.S.-style regime-change rhetoric.
Guarantees for All Sides: A credible negotiation would require guarantees for the Chavista movement (protection from vengeful prosecution, a role in politics) in exchange for a clear electoral timetable and military neutrality. Neighboring states could act as guarantors.
Staggered Sanctions Relief: Linking the step-by-step lifting of international sanctions to verifiable steps by the regime (releasing political prisoners, allowing electoral authority independence, permitting humanitarian access) creates a tangible pathway out of crisis.
Focus on Humanitarian Corridors: As a confidence-building measure, regional powers could broker agreements for the unimpeded delivery of food and medicine through neutral agencies, de-linking survival from politics.

Q4: The article states “Nations cannot be engineered from outside.” But what about post-WWII successes like the democratization of Germany and Japan? Don’t those counter this argument?
A: The post-WWII examples are significant outliers, not replicable models, for several reasons:

Total Military Defeat & Occupation: Germany and Japan were utterly defeated, their cities destroyed, and their governments completely dissolved. This created a tabula rasa not present in modern interventions where regimes are degraded but not wholly eradicated.
Cultural Homogeneity & Institutional Legacy: Both nations had pre-existing, strong bureaucratic and institutional traditions that could be repurposed. Venezuela’s institutions are hollowed out.
Marshall Plan-Level Commitment: The U.S. invested the equivalent of hundreds of billions of today’s dollars over many years, with a bipartisan domestic consensus for rebuilding. There is no such will for Venezuela.
Clear Geopolitical Threat: The Cold War provided a unifying, decades-long motivation for the U.S. to sustain the project. Today’s engagements lack a similarly defining, sustained ideological driver.
These cases were products of a unique, cataclysmic moment. Attempts to replicate them in societies with ongoing civil conflicts, like Iraq or Afghanistan, have failed precisely because the conditions for exogenous engineering were absent.

Q5: If imperial overreach is the core problem, what would a “post-imperial” foreign policy look like for a great power like the United States?
A: A post-imperial U.S. foreign policy would be defined by restraint, partnership, and a focus on systemic rather than partisan goals:

From Regime Change to Conflict Containment: The goal would shift from overthrowing governments to mitigating the humanitarian and regional spillover effects of conflicts, using diplomacy and targeted aid.
From Unilateralism to Coalition-Building: Leadership would mean mobilizing and empowering regional actors and international institutions to take the lead in crises within their spheres, providing support rather than direction.
From Military Primacy to Diplomatic Investment: Resources would be rebalanced towards State Department capabilities, foreign aid for development (not tied to political alignment), and cultural/diplomatic exchanges.
From Spheres of Influence to Rules-Based Order (Genuinely): It would require adhering to international law itself, not selectively invoking it. This means accepting rulings against itself and its allies and championing multilateralism even when inconvenient.
Addressing “Root Causes” at Home: Recognizing that domestic policies (drug demand, lax gun laws, energy consumption) are major drivers of foreign crises (cartel violence, weapon proliferation, climate change) and addressing them is a critical part of a responsible foreign policy. It is a policy of humility, recognizing the limits of power and the primacy of local agency.

The Imperial Script, Why Venezuela is the Latest Stage for a Tired and Tragic Play