The US has launched one of the most intense overseas military operations in decades, involving dozens of aircraft and elite special forces that struck multiple sites across Venezuela. President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were captured and flown to New York to face conspiracy and drug trafficking charges. However, the American public's response to this operation has been starkly muted, with only 33% of Americans expressing support for the US removal of Maduro.
The capture of Maduro is a rare institutional rebuke to President Donald Trump, who faces opposition from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress over his authority to launch military action without congressional approval. In contrast, historically, Americans have given new conflicts more leeway, with majorities backing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 1991 Gulf War, and the 2001 Afghanistan War.
Despite the intense display of American might, there is a growing unease among lawmakers from both parties about open-ended military adventurism. The Senate's war powers resolution aims to restrict Trump's authority to launch further military action without Congress' approval.
However, rather than celebrating this move, critics are being smeared as pro-Maduro sympathizers among the GOP and conservative bastions. This kind of binary propaganda is being rejected by many Americans who recognize that skepticism about US actions in Venezuela doesn't make them pro-Maduro or pro-terror.
The issue at hand is the lack of faith from the American public when it comes to military intervention, a sharp departure from historical norms where America's interventions were often seen as having some level of benefit. This sentiment was evident during the long and bloody conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, with many Americans now saying those wars weren't worth fighting.
Critics also point out that the US has failed to dismantle networks or protect its citizens through military force alone. Instead, cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl continue to flow through the same hemispheric routes, undermining any argument that military intervention will solve problems.
The trend is clear: Americans want Washington to focus on domestic problems rather than launch foreign interventions. This desire for a more measured approach has cut across party lines, including much of Trump's base. Many now warn that new regime-change operations risk repeating the same failures that degraded public trust in the first place.
In fact, The Intercept has been sounding a warning about the dangers of unchecked power and the erosion of democratic norms. As we move forward into an increasingly authoritarian world, it's more crucial than ever to have independent journalism like ours that holds those in power accountable.
The capture of Maduro is a rare institutional rebuke to President Donald Trump, who faces opposition from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress over his authority to launch military action without congressional approval. In contrast, historically, Americans have given new conflicts more leeway, with majorities backing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 1991 Gulf War, and the 2001 Afghanistan War.
Despite the intense display of American might, there is a growing unease among lawmakers from both parties about open-ended military adventurism. The Senate's war powers resolution aims to restrict Trump's authority to launch further military action without Congress' approval.
However, rather than celebrating this move, critics are being smeared as pro-Maduro sympathizers among the GOP and conservative bastions. This kind of binary propaganda is being rejected by many Americans who recognize that skepticism about US actions in Venezuela doesn't make them pro-Maduro or pro-terror.
The issue at hand is the lack of faith from the American public when it comes to military intervention, a sharp departure from historical norms where America's interventions were often seen as having some level of benefit. This sentiment was evident during the long and bloody conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, with many Americans now saying those wars weren't worth fighting.
Critics also point out that the US has failed to dismantle networks or protect its citizens through military force alone. Instead, cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl continue to flow through the same hemispheric routes, undermining any argument that military intervention will solve problems.
The trend is clear: Americans want Washington to focus on domestic problems rather than launch foreign interventions. This desire for a more measured approach has cut across party lines, including much of Trump's base. Many now warn that new regime-change operations risk repeating the same failures that degraded public trust in the first place.
In fact, The Intercept has been sounding a warning about the dangers of unchecked power and the erosion of democratic norms. As we move forward into an increasingly authoritarian world, it's more crucial than ever to have independent journalism like ours that holds those in power accountable.
. I get why they're skeptical about Maduro and the US involvement, but 33% support just seems low? On one hand, I agree we need a more measured approach to foreign interventions – all those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't exactly go as planned 
. And yeah, it's refreshing to see bipartisan agreement on this issue.
. The thing that bothers me is how some folks are being smeared as pro-Maduro just because they're critical of the US action 
. Can't we just have a nuanced discussion about this without labeling people?
... I mean, back in my day, we used to think that American military intervention was a big deal, you know? But now, it just seems like another news cycle 
... 33% support for removing Maduro? That's like me being against pineapple on pizza 
... not exactly the majority vibe. And what's with all these folks getting smeared as pro-Maduro sympathizers just because they question Trump's moves? Not cool, man 
...
... We can't keep relying on military power to fix our problems abroad. I'm all for a measured approach, you know? Maybe focus on some good ol' fashioned diplomacy instead of throwing the book at Maduro 
...
... We need some accountability from our leaders, not just a bunch of empty threats 
. And don't even get me started on the whole "dismantle networks" thing 
. The fact that 67% of Americans don't support the removal of Maduro is a wake-up call for the government and the media 
. We can't keep relying on military force to solve our problems, especially when it hasn't worked in other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan 
.
. It's time for Washington to focus on domestic issues like income inequality, climate change, and healthcare 
.
. Smearing people who question US actions as pro-Maduro sympathizers is not only unfair but also unhelpful in the conversation about foreign policy 
. We need more nuanced discussions, not binary propaganda 
.
.
I mean, have you seen those fentanyl packets they've been sending from Mexico to the States? It's like, hello, let's try to fix our own problems before we start messing with others' 
.
. I'm all for skepticism, but let's not forget that there are two sides to every story 
.
. And honestly, can we blame them? The US has been trying to muscle in on Venezuela's affairs for years and it's only gotten worse 
. So basically people r tired of US invading other countries without Congress approval. Its like they want less drama and just focus on fixing domestic problems. Makes sense to me. I mean who doesn't want a more peaceful world right? 
. I mean, on one hand you got your Trump supporters who are all about regime change and taking down Maduro 
. And honestly, who can blame them? I mean, we're living in a time where America's been involved in some pretty questionable conflicts over the years, and it's about time people started questioning whether military intervention is always the answer 
. It's just another example of how politicians are trying to silence dissenting voices rather than engaging in a real conversation about policy. Anyway, I think this whole thing is a major wake-up call for America to take a step back and reevaluate its approach to foreign policy 
.
. And let's be real, most Americans aren't even on board with this whole thing - only 33% is kinda weird 
. We should be focusing on fixing our own problems at home rather than dropping bombs across the globe 
. And the fact that we can't even get a straight yes from Americans on this one is just wild. I mean, we're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but when it comes down to it, most people are just like "meh, let's not rock the boat" 
. Like, what's next? Labeling anyone who disagrees with Trump as a communist or something? No, no, no... that's just not right 
. I don't know, maybe I'm just old-school or something, but can't we just try to find a way to address our problems that doesn't involve blowing stuff up? 
. We're always quick to jump into action without thinking about the consequences, and it's got us looking like a superpower with an intervention problem 
. That's not even a discussion, it's just fear-mongering! We should be having real conversations about foreign policy and whether or not military intervention actually helps 
. My kid can see that when they watch those news programs about Syria or Yemen – all that chaos doesn't seem to make the world a better place 
US politicians are at each other's throats while Maduro is sipping champagne with Trump 
.
. And honestly, I'm glad The Intercept is sounding the alarm on this - we need people like them holding those in power accountable