← Back to context

Comment by perihelions

4 days ago

To briefly quantify some things: US public support at the onset of the Afghanistan invasion polled at 88% [a]; at the onset of the Iraq invasion, 62%, rising to 72% [b]; and Venezuela here and now polls at 30% supporting "U.S. taking military action in Venezuela" [c] (Nov. 19–21 2025).

[a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_public_opinion_o...

[b] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_S...

[c] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-venezuela-u-s-military-act...

I suspect that invading and bombing a country for a few hours and then pulling out is not what most people will have in mind when you mention "taking military action". People are much, much more likely to remember the military quagmires in Vietnam or the Middle East, which have absolutely nothing to do with what occurred here.

  • Taking out Maduro is likely to lead to similar consequences as toppling Saddam, isn’t it? I predict the nation will be very unstable for decades ahead.

    The action is smaller scale, but the ethics of it are the same: it’s abhorrent. The justifications are paper-thin ”the people deserve democracy”, while everyone knows the only interest served is that of the US government.

    • "Taking out Maduro is likely to lead to similar consequences as toppling Saddam, isn’t it? "

      I don't think so. The Near East is a simmering cauldron of ancient ethnic and sectarian hatreds. Compared to that, Venezuela is ethnically and religiously almost homogeneous.

      There is no equivalent of mad clerics preaching to their flock that they have to exterminate their heretic neighbours and that God will grant them paradise for doing so.

    • That’s the same talking point the far right uses for why the US shouldn’t get involved in Ukraine because they worry about a destabilized Russia if Putin goes away.

      It’s some sort of dictator insurance policy. The idea that they are there because the country will likely just do it again but worse given the chance.

      3 replies →

Public opinion in 2001 and 2003 followed the 9/11 terror attack and was very fresh in peoples mind. A more recent war (2015) would be the attack on Yemen by Barack Obama.

I can however not find any good public opinion for that war.

  • I don't think Americans perceive much of a difference between attacking Al Qaeda++ in Afghanistan versus in Yemen, certainly not enough to see it as "a different war", and it's not clear that perception is incorrect.

    • Entirely different, from an American perspective.

      Afghanistan had the context of 9/11. All Americans knew about 9/11, and most cared strongly about it.

      I doubt most Americans know anything about Yemen or know anything about any US involvement there, nor do they care.

      Military strikes in Yemen aren't seen as the same war. Afghanistan and Iraq were boots on the ground, building up military bases, hearing about the occasional death of US personnel, etc. It's also decades apart.

      When it comes to Yemen, the average American is probably entirely unaware of it, and the ones that do know about it are definitely going to place it in the Palestine/Israel context (which has huge mindshare circulation here, All things considered - we usually just ignore things outside of US borders and this is ultra politicized here). Maybe without that element, there would be more truth to what you were saying, but it's definitely in the Israel/Hamas war bucket as of now.

      2 replies →

  • We've been bombing Yemen on and off since post 9/11, including a rather large attack with UK support just last year (2025). Are you thinking of the Saudi-led intervention that occurred in 2015 in Yemen as part of the Yemeni civil war? Or maybe when we built a base there in 2011 to facilitate more drones?

I think this is a very good indicator US has been transitioning away from democracy towards something else for quite a while and now it has reached a point where no justification for an illegal war is even required.

After the Iraq war we(US allies that were dragged into this war by a bunch of lies) felt like this was very bad, but it was a blunder of one administration and the trust in the US as a whole was going to be restored.

Now, no one even pretends this is the case.

  • > After the Iraq war we(US allies that were dragged into this war by a bunch of lies) felt like this was very bad, but it was a blunder of one administration and the trust in the US as a whole was going to be restored.

    I don't understand how people can be this naive. It's the only thing the US has ever done for the entirety of it's existence! How did you miss that?

Ironically it's very possible the support for US military intervention is higher among Venezuelans than US citizens.

On the plus side, that's probably good for the odds of success.

On the minus side, they're not paying the bill.

  • Do we know who's been installed as a replacement? As with Libya, getting rid of a bad leader doesn't necessarily make the situation better.

  • The question is whether it's the majority of Venezuelans. I have no doubt that there are many who hate Maduro and his regime - for very good reasons - but that's true of many authoritarian countries that nevertheless have the "silent majority" tacitly supporting their regime.

    • There is the opposition vote result that showed us 75% wanted Maduro out. Of course you can ask, did that include having US forces remove him? On the other hand, you can bet a lot the result would have been even more than 75% if everybody wasn't afraid while voting in secret.