America’s Latest Chapter in a Century of Intervention

by

The Venezuelan Boat Bombings

Bottom Line Up Front

This isn’t new. The United States has a well-documented history of military interventions globally. According to Congressional Research Service documentation, the U.S. has used armed forces abroad in over 500 instances since 1798. From 1898 to 1994, the U.S. successfully intervened to change governments in Latin America alone at least 41 times. An average of one every 28 months or one global intervention every 18 months for over a century. When expanded globally to include interventions in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, the documented count exceeds 52 major interventions.

Read More:

Venezuela 2025: History Repeating

The parallels between the current Venezuelan crisis and past U.S. interventions are stark:

  • Analysts note that oil is a potential factor and may supply pressure to the situation. Venezuela has one of the world’s largest crude oil reserves (estimated 300 billion barrels), with geopolitical tensions between Exxon (operating in Guyana) and Chevron (operating in Venezuela)
  • Questionable pretexts for military action (drugs, terrorism) without sufficient credible evidence
  • Extrajudicial killings presented as law enforcement
  • Massive military deployment as show of force and pressure tactic
  • Recognition of alternative government (Guaidรณ)
  • Economic sanctions designed to create suffering and instability
  • Bounty on head of state ($50 million for Maduro’s capture)
  • Circumventing congressional oversight and constitutional war powers

Maduro identifies the U.S. goal as ‘regime change for oil’ rather than legitimate counternarcotics operations. The pattern is familiar because it has been repeated, with variations, for over a century.

Section references heavily ๐Ÿ”ต Center for American Progress , ๐ŸŸข BBC, ๐ŸŸข Newsweek

Legend: ๐Ÿ”ต Left-leaning source, ๐Ÿ”ด Right-leaning source, ๐ŸŸข Centrist/Nonpartisan source, โšซ Government/Official source, ๐ŸŸค Academic/Research source

The Legal Vacuum

Legal experts have strongly questioned the strikes’ legality. Former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane notes the administration is ‘throwing a lot of words out there that don’t necessarily go together or constitute a coherent legal justification.’ The designation of a ‘non-international armed conflict’ with drug cartels represents a dangerous expansion of presidential war powers and the definition of armed conflict under international law.

Read More:

Comparison to Past Maritime Interdiction

Historical Context: Maritime Interdiction Precedents

The 2025 Caribbean strikes represent a significant escalation from past U.S. maritime counter-drug operations. During the 1990s, the Coast Guard conducted extensive Caribbean interdictions under Operation Frontier Shield and Operation Frontier Lance, seizing vessels and prosecuting traffickers but these operations focused on boarding, arrest, and prosecution rather than lethal strikes. (U.S. Naval Institute) The Wall Street Journal noted that the September 2 strike was “the US military’s first publicly acknowledged airstrike in Central or South America since the US invasion of Panama in 1989.” (Wikipedia)

The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act has enabled U.S. jurisdiction over stateless vessels and those with flag-state consent since the 1980s (DHS), but judicial precedents established nexus requirements. Demonstrating connections between intercepted drugs and the United States before prosecution. (Center for International Maritime Security) The current campaign abandons that prosecutorial model entirely, killing suspects without trial, arrest, or judicial review. Even during the height of the 1980s “Tanker Wars” in the Persian Gulf and Cold War-era interdictions, U.S. forces primarily focused on boarding and seizure operations rather than summary destruction of vessels. (U.S. Naval Institute) The 2025 operations thus represent not an evolution of established maritime interdiction practice, but a fundamental departure from it.

Sources:

The Bombing Campaign

On September 13, 2025, the U.S. military conducted an airstrike on a boat in international waters near Venezuela, launching the latest phase of American intervention in the region. President Trump released aerial footage of the attack, claiming the vessel carried drugs and was operated by Tren de Aragua members. The strike killed all 11 people on board. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated bluntly: ‘Instead of interdicting it, on the president’s orders, we blew it up. And it’ll happen again.’

And it did happen again:

  • September 15: Three people killed in second strike
  • October 3: Four people killed
  • October 14: Six people killed
  • October 16: First strike with survivors. Two killed, two rescued and detained on U.S. Navy ship

The Pentagon formally notified Congress on October 1 that the United States is in a ‘non-international armed conflict’ with drug cartels in the Caribbean. This declaration came without congressional authorization. These reports are as of October 21, 2025 and subject to change as new data emerges.

Read More:

Congressional Oversight Mechanics

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, when the President reports or is required to report the introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities, a 60-day clock begins. Unless Congress declares war or passes specific statutory authorization, the President must withdraw forces within 60 days extendable to 90 days if certified as necessary for troop safety. (Congress.gov, Wikipedia) Congress must introduce authorizing legislation within 30 days of this notification, with committees required to report within 24 days or face automatic discharge. (Congress.gov) However, successive administrations have interpreted terms like “hostilities” permissively. The Obama administration argued in 2011 that operations involving “limited exposure” and “limited military means” didn’t trigger the clock (Lawfare), allowing continued operations past the deadline.

Sources:

Domestic Opinion & Political Consequences

The Senate war powers resolution to bar strikes without congressional authorization failed to pass (Wikipedia), but revealed partisan divisions. Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Republican Jim Risch defended the strikes as appropriate action, while Democrats raised constitutional concerns. Congressional frustration emerged in classified briefings, with members from both parties expressing anger that “briefers were unable to answer questions about the legal basis for the operations,” (CNN) according to reporting. The administration’s refusal to provide unedited video footage to Congress further strained oversight efforts. Public opinion polling on the strikes remains limited, but the operation represents a significant expansion of presidential war powers with uncertain domestic political sustainability.

Sources:

Military Buildup

The strikes are backed by a large-scale deployment not seen in recent decades.:

  • Eight warships in the southern Caribbean
  • One nuclear-powered submarine
  • Three B-52 bombers (capable of carrying nuclear weapons) conducting demonstration missions off Venezuela’s coast
  • Special operations aviation units conducting training exercises
  • 1,200 Marines from the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group

Venezuelan President Nicolรกs Maduro described the deployment as ‘1,200 missiles and a nuclear submarine targeting Venezuela’ and called it an ‘extravagant, unjustifiable, immoral and absolutely criminal bloody threat.’

Read More:
๐ŸŸข 10,000 US forces now supporting counternarcotics operations in Caribbean – The Hill

Questionable Evidence and Growing Concerns

Multiple sources have raised serious questions about the administration’s claims:

  • Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello investigated the first victims and found ‘none was from Tren de Aragua. None were drug traffickers.’
  • Congressional members from both parties have expressed frustration at briefings, with one source noting ‘Republicans were mad that the briefers were unable to answer questions about the legal basis for the operations’
  • The administration has refused to provide unedited video footage to Congress
  • Colombian President Gustavo Petro claimed a boat struck on October 3 was actually Colombian, not Venezuelan
  • Venezuela is not a major source of fentanyl, which mainly enters the U.S. over land from Mexico, not by Caribbean boat routes

The Dominican Republic later announced recovery of 377 packages of cocaine (1,000 kilograms) from one site, though this evidence emerged after the initial strikes and does not confirm the presence of drugs on the specific boats that were destroyed.

Intelligence/Verification Questions

Maritime interdiction operations face inherent attribution challenges. Under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, U.S. jurisdiction depends on factors like vessel flag, crew nationality, and territorial watersโ€”creating ambiguity when smugglers use stateless vessels or mixed-nationality crews. (Center for International Maritime Security) Intelligence cueing typically relies on aerial surveillance, signal intelligence, and Joint Interagency Task Force South coordination (Center for International Maritime Security, DHS), but independent verification at sea is difficultโ€”few independent observers, rapid destruction of vessels, and challenges recovering wreckage or crew manifests. (CNN) Colombian President Petro’s claim that at least one struck vessel carried Colombian nationals, not Venezuelans (CNN), highlights how nationality attribution can fail even with intelligence assets deployed.

Sources:

Civilian Casualty Accounting & Independent Verification

Limited Independent Verification

By October 19, two survivors from the October 16 strike were repatriated to Colombia and Ecuador (Wikipedia). The first confirmed survivors of the campaign. However, independent verification of casualties at sea faces severe limitations: few civilian observers in interdiction zones, rapid vessel destruction, difficulty recovering bodies or wreckage, and absence of crew manifests for stateless vessels. (Center for International Maritime Security) As of October 22, no independent human rights organizations including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) or its Special Monitoring Mechanism for Venezuela (MESEVE) have announced investigations into the maritime strikes, though the IACHR has documented other Venezuelan human rights violations extensively, including over 1,600 detentions since July 2024 elections. (Usmission) The lack of IACHR maritime investigation may reflect jurisdictional challenges in international waters and difficulty accessing evidence.

Sources:

International Reaction

The strikes have drawn widespread condemnation:

  • Amnesty International USA described the strikes as murder
  • Brazilian President Lula: ‘Using lethal force in situations that do not constitute armed conflicts amounts to executing people without a judgement’
  • Russia expressed ‘serious concern’ about actions ‘fraught with far-reaching consequences for the region’
  • China warned that U.S. actions ‘pose a threat to freedom of navigation’

Venezuela has mobilized its military, police, and civilian militias in response. Maduro has prepared to declare a state of emergency, and thousands of citizens have lined up to join the country’s militia in case of U.S. invasion. The Senate voted on a war powers resolution to bar the strikes without congressional authorization, though it failed to pass.

Read More:
๐ŸŸค The Strategic Costs of US Strikes Against Venezuela – Stimson Center
๐ŸŸข Venezuela and Fentanyl: Debunking the Myth with U.S. Government Data – The Open Record (companion piece)

Regional Spillover & Alliance Politics

Regional Response and Cooperation

The Dominican Republic cooperated directly with U.S. forces. Its National Directorate for Drug Control announced the first joint counter-narcotics operation, recovering cocaine from waters after one strike. (Wikipedia) However, other regional powers have taken divergent stances. Colombia and Venezuela deployed 25,000 combined troops to their shared border in August 2025 to combat organized crime (Colombia Reports), but Colombian President Gustavo Petro later protested that U.S. strikes killed Colombian citizens (CNN), calling officials “guilty of murder.” Brazil doubled border patrol forces and began relocating Venezuelan migrants internally (Al Jazeera), while maintaining diplomatic distance from U.S. military operations. Venezuela responded by mobilizing over 4 million militia members and conducting large-scale Caribbean naval exercises starting September 17 (Wikipedia), demonstrating how U.S. actions triggered regional militarization rather than cooperation.

Sources:

The Organization That Predates the CIA

Before there was a Central Intelligence Agency, there was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), America’s World War II-era intelligence agency. The OSS conducted covert operations, gathered intelligence, and trained resistance fighters across the globe from 1942-1945. When it was disbanded after the war, many of its personnel and methods were incorporated into the newly formed CIA in 1947.

Understanding this lineage matters because American interventionist patterns were established long before the Cold War. The tactics, justifications, and institutional knowledge passed from the OSS to the CIA, and the pattern of intervention extends back even further to the era of ‘Banana Wars’ and dollar diplomacy of the early 20th century.

Read More:

A Timeline of U.S. Interventions (1898-Present)

This timeline documents major U.S. military interventions, covert operations, and support for regime change. The pattern that emerges spans over a century and multiple presidential administrations of both parties.

The Cost to Americans

This section provides only direct military casualties and immediate costs to acknowledge the tremendous impact on American lives as well. A comprehensive analysis of long-term costs to American families, veterans, and taxpayers – including PTSD, suicide rates, VA benefits, interest on war debt, and generational impacts – will be published in a forthcoming article.

Major US Interventions: Direct Costs

Philippines War (1899-1902)

  • US Casualties: 4,196 killed (1,020 in combat), 2,930 wounded
  • Cost: $400 million (1902) = ~$13-14 billion today
  • Source: National Archives

Korean War (1950-1953)

Vietnam War (1965-1975)

  • US Casualties: 58,269 killed, 150,000+ wounded, 1,672 missing
  • Direct Cost: $168 billion (1975) = $1+ trillion today
  • Veterans benefits through 2000: Additional $270 billion
  • Source: The Balance

Iraq War (2003-2011, resumed 2014)

  • US Casualties: 4,431 killed, 32,000 wounded
  • Direct Cost: $1.922 trillion through 2019 (includes DOD, State Dept, veterans care through 2053)
  • Total post-9/11 wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria): $8 trillion
  • Sources: Brown University Costs of War, Military Times

Note: These figures represent only immediate costs and do not include:

  • Long-term veteran healthcare and disability payments
  • PTSD treatment and suicide prevention costs
  • Family support and caregiver expenses
  • Interest on debt incurred to finance wars
  • Economic opportunity costs
  • Loss of productivity from wounded/disabled veterans
  • Generational impacts on military families

A comprehensive accounting of the true cost of American interventionism – to service members, their families, and American taxpayers – will be examined in a forthcoming article. Click for full infographic from below.

Vertical timeline of US interventions and covert actions
Click for full infographic

Legend: โ˜… = Covert operations | โ–  = Overt military interventions

The Banana Wars Era (1898-1934)

โ–  1898 โ€“ Cuba & Philippines โ€ข Presidents McKinley (R), T. Roosevelt (R)

The Spanish-American War leads to a U.S. occupation of Cuba and colonization of Philippines. The Platt Amendment (1901) gave the U.S. the right to intervene in Cuban affairs, which it did repeatedly. In the Philippines, the U.S. fought a brutal counter-insurgency war that killed an estimated 200,000-1,000,000 Filipinos.

Read More:

โ–  1899-1901 โ€“ China (Boxer Rebellion) โ€ข President McKinley (R)

The U.S. is part of the Eight-Nation Alliance that invaded China to suppress the Boxer Uprising. Allied forces occupied Beijing and imposed the Boxer Protocol, which forced China to pay massive indemnities and grant foreign powers expanded rights. This intervention, along with subsequent support for Chiang Kai-shek against Communists, contributed to Chinese resentment and the eventual Sino-Soviet alliance.

Read More:

โ–  1903 โ€“ Panama โ€ข President T. Roosevelt (R)

The U.S. supports Panamanian independence from Colombia to secure canal rights. The USS Nashville prevented Colombian troops from suppressing the rebellion. The resulting Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty gave the U.S. control of the Canal Zone ‘in perpetuity.’

Read More:

โ–  1912-1933 โ€“ Nicaragua โ€ข Presidents Taft (R), Wilson (D), Harding (R), Coolidge (R), Hoover (R)

A twenty-one year U.S. Marine occupation to protect American business interests and fight Augusto Sandino’s nationalist insurgency. Marines left in 1933 but the U.S.-trained National Guard under Anastasio Somoza Garcรญa soon seized power, beginning a family dictatorship lasting until 1979.

Read More:

โ–  1915-1934 โ€“ Haiti โ€ข Presidents Wilson (D), Harding (R), Coolidge (R), Hoover (R), FDR (D)

This was a nineteen-year U.S. occupation following political instability. Marines dissolved the Haitian army, controlled customs revenues, and supervised a new constitution that allowed foreign land ownership (previously prohibited). The occupation entrenched an economic system favoring American investors.

Read More:

โ–  1916-1924 โ€“ Dominican Republic โ€ข Presidents Wilson (D), Harding (R), Coolidge (R)

An eight-year occupation following political unrest and debt concerns. U.S. Marines dissolved the Dominican military and established a U.S. military government that directly ruled the country.

Read More:

โ–  1918-1920 โ€“ Russia โ€ข President Wilson (D)

The U.S. deploys 13,000 troops in an Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War to support the White movement and overthrow the Bolsheviks. The ‘American North Russia Expeditionary Force’ (Polar Bear Expedition) launches from Arkhangelsk, while American Expeditionary Force Siberia operates from Vladivostok.

Read More:

U.S.-Installed Dictators & Puppet Governments (Banana Wars Era)

Throughout this period, the U.S. installed or heavily supported authoritarian leaders who would protect American interests:

  • Fulgencio Batista (Cuba, 1933-1959) โ€“ U.S.-backed military dictator who allowed American businesses to dominate the Cuban economy
  • Anastasio Somoza Garcรญa (Nicaragua, 1937-1956) โ€“ Installed by the U.S. after occupation, founded dynasty that ruled until 1979
  • Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1930-1961) โ€“ Rose to power through U.S.-trained National Guard during occupation

Early Cold War Era (1945-1960)

โ˜… 1927-1949 โ€“ Chinese Civil War โ€ข Presidents FDR (D), Truman (D)

U.S. provided over $2 billion in military aid to Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist forces fighting Mao Zedong’s Communists. Despite massive U.S. support, Nationalists were defeated and fled to Taiwan in 1949. This intervention, combined with the earlier Boxer Rebellion actions, directly contributed to the 1950 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship as Stalin and Mao saw themselves encircled by U.S. military power and interventions throughout Asia.

Read More:

โ˜… 1945-1954 โ€“ Vietnam โ€ข Presidents Truman (D), Eisenhower (R)

OSS officer Major Archimedes Patti worked closely with Ho Chi Minh during World War II in operations against Japan. Patti attended the reading of Vietnam’s Declaration of Independence on September 2, 1945, which quoted the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Ho Chi Minh sought U.S. recognition and support for Vietnamese independence, but the U.S. backed France’s colonial reconquest instead. The Pentagon Papers later revealed that U.S. officials knew the 1954 Geneva Accords would have led to Ho Chi Minh winning democratic elections, so the U.S. prevented them from occurring, backing the authoritarian Ngo Dinh Diem instead.

Read More:

โ˜… 1945-1953 โ€“ Korea โ€ข Presidents Truman (D), Eisenhower (R)

Following World War II, the U.S. backed Syngman Rhee’s authoritarian government in South Korea, preventing unified democratic elections that might have avoided the Korean War. Rhee ruled as a dictator from 1948-1960, suppressing dissent and rigging elections with U.S. support.

Read More:

โ–  1946 โ€“ Japan โ€ข President Truman (D)

Following Allied victory, occupied Japan ratifies new constitution closely following a ‘model copy’ prepared by General MacArthur’s command, fundamentally restructuring the Japanese government.

โ˜… 1947-1949 โ€“ Greece โ€ข President Truman (D)

Truman Doctrine provides massive military and economic aid to Greek government fighting communist insurgency in civil war. U.S. military advisors help defeat communist forces, establishing pattern of supporting anti-communist governments regardless of their democratic credentials.

Read More:

โ˜… 1948 โ€“ Italy โ€ข President Truman (D)

CIA conducts first major electoral interference operation to prevent communist victory in Italian elections. This operation became the model for future covert electoral interventions worldwide.

Read More:

โ˜… 1953 โ€“ Iran โ€ข President Eisenhower (R)

CIA Operation Ajax overthrows democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he nationalized Iran’s oil industry. The coup reinstalled Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose authoritarian rule and secret police (SAVAK) brutalized opponents for 25 years until the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Read More:

โ˜… 1953 โ€“ Philippines โ€ข President Eisenhower (R)

U.S. interferes in Philippine elections to ensure pro-American candidates prevail.

Read More:

โ˜… 1954 โ€“ Guatemala โ€ข President Eisenhower (R)

CIA Operation PBSUCCESS overthrows democratically elected President Jacobo รrbenz after he initiated land reform affecting United Fruit Company holdings. The coup installed Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, beginning decades of military dictatorships and civil war that killed over 200,000 Guatemalans.

Read More:

โ˜… 1956 โ€“ Hungary โ€ข President Eisenhower (R)

Radio Free Europe encouraged Hungarian uprising against Soviet control, but U.S. provided no support when Soviet tanks crushed the revolution. Thousands of Hungarians died believing American help would come.

Read More:

โ˜… 1957 โ€“ Lebanon โ€ข President Eisenhower (R)

U.S. interferes in Lebanese elections.

Read More:

โ˜… 1950s-1960s โ€“ Tibet โ€ข Presidents Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D)

CIA conducted extensive covert operations in Tibet, training and funding Tibetan resistance against Chinese control. Operations included arms drops, establishment of guerrilla training camps, and support for the Dalai Lama’s government-in-exile.

Read More:

โ˜… 1958-1961 โ€“ Indonesia โ€ข President Eisenhower (R)

CIA backed regional rebellions against President Sukarno, including providing B-26 bombers and pilots. The operations failed, but laid groundwork for the 1965 coup.

The 1960s: Peak Intervention Decade

โ˜… 1960-1961 โ€“ Congo โ€ข Presidents Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D)

CIA backs Colonel Joseph Mobutu in a coup against democratically elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. Evidence suggests CIA involvement in Lumumba’s assassination, though details remain classified. Mobutu’s kleptocratic dictatorship would last until 1997.

Read More:

โ˜…/โ–  1961 โ€“ Cuba (Bay of Pigs) โ€ข President Kennedy (D)

CIA-organized invasion by Cuban exiles attempts to overthrow Fidel Castro. The operation failed, but U.S. attempts to remove Castro continued for decades through Operation Mongoose, assassination plots, and sabotage operations. During this period, the Joint Chiefs of Staff developed Operation Northwoods, a proposed false flag operation that would have involved killing American citizens and blaming Cuba to justify invasion. President Kennedy rejected the plan.

Read More:

โ˜… 1961 โ€“ Dominican Republic โ€ข President Kennedy (D)

U.S. assists in assassination of dictator Rafael Trujillo.

โ˜… 1963 โ€“ Iraq โ€ข President Kennedy (D)

CIA assists Ba’ath Party coup bringing Saddam Hussein’s party to power. The new government used CIA-provided lists to systematically hunt down and kill Iraqi communists.

โ˜… 1963 โ€“ South Vietnam โ€ข President Kennedy (D)

CIA supports military coup against Ngo Dinh Diem, leading to his assassination. This begins the revolving door of unstable governments that contributes to the Vietnam War’s escalation.

โ˜… 1964 โ€“ Brazil โ€ข President Johnson (D)

U.S. supports military coup against democratically elected President Joรฃo Goulart. The resulting military dictatorship lasted 21 years, during which thousands were tortured, killed, or ‘disappeared.’

Read More:

โ˜… 1964-1973 โ€“ Laos (Secret War) โ€ข Presidents Johnson (D), Nixon (R)

CIA conducted the largest covert operation in its history in Laos. Over 2 million tons of bombs were dropped (more than all of WWII), with 580,000 bombing missions. The operation created conditions for the Pathet Lao communist takeover in 1975. Laos became the most heavily bombed country per capita in history, and unexploded ordnance continues to kill civilians today.

Read More:

โ–  1965 โ€“ Dominican Republic โ€ข President Johnson (D)

23,000 U.S. troops invade to prevent leftist Juan Bosch from returning to power after a military coup. Operation Power Pack marked the first major U.S. combat deployment in Latin America since the 1920s.

Read More:

โ˜… 1965-1966 โ€“ Indonesia โ€ข President Johnson (D)

U.S. supports General Suharto’s overthrow of President Sukarno. Mass killings of alleged communists and ethnic Chinese follow, with death toll estimates ranging from 500,000 to over 1 million. The CIA provided lists of communist party members to Indonesian military death squads. Suharto would rule as a U.S.-backed dictator until 1998.

Read More:

โ˜…/โ–  1969-1973 โ€“ Cambodia (Secret Bombing) โ€ข President Nixon (R)

Operation Menu: Nixon and Kissinger conducted illegal secret bombing campaign against neutral Cambodia. Over 500,000 tons of bombs dropped, destabilizing Prince Sihanouk’s government and creating massive refugee crisis. The bombing directly enabled the Khmer Rouge’s rise to power in 1975, leading to the Cambodian genocide that killed 1.5-2 million people. After the genocide, the U.S. bizarrely supported the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnam-backed government.

Read More:

The 1970s-1980s: Dirty Wars

โ˜… 1970-1973 โ€“ Chile โ€ข President Nixon (R)

CIA attempts to prevent Salvador Allende’s election, then works to destabilize his government through Project FUBELT. On September 11, 1973, General Augusto Pinochet overthrew Allende in a military coup. Pinochet’s dictatorship killed over 3,000 people and tortured tens of thousands more.

Read More:

โ˜… 1980s โ€“ El Salvador โ€ข Presidents Carter (D), Reagan (R), G.H.W. Bush (R)

U.S. provides over $4 billion in military aid to Salvadoran government during civil war. U.S.-trained and funded military and death squads killed approximately 75,000 civilians, including Archbishop ร“scar Romero and four American churchwomen.

Read More:

โ˜… 1980s โ€“ Nicaragua (Contras) โ€ข Presidents Reagan (R), G.H.W. Bush (R)

CIA organizes, trains, and funds Contra rebels to overthrow the democratically elected Sandinista government. The operation included mining Nicaraguan harbors and continued even after Congress prohibited further funding (leading to the Iran-Contra scandal). The International Court of Justice ruled the U.S. actions violated international law.

Read More:

โ˜… 1980s โ€“ Poland โ€ข President Reagan (R)

CIA covertly funded Solidarity movement to undermine communist government. Operations included smuggling printing equipment, providing financial support to underground newspapers, and coordinating with Vatican. Poland became first Eastern Bloc country to break from Soviet control.

Read More:

โ˜… 1980s-1990s โ€“ Mexico โ€ข Presidents Reagan (R), G.H.W. Bush (R), Clinton (D)

While Mexico maintained formal independence, the U.S. heavily influenced Mexican politics and supported the authoritarian PRI government. President Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988-1994), who came to power in a widely disputed election, received strong U.S. backing as he implemented neoliberal reforms including NAFTA. Salinas’s regime was marked by extreme violence and political assassinations. In March 1994, his hand-picked successor Luis Donaldo Colosio was assassinated at a campaign rally in Tijuana, with widespread suspicions that Salinas himself ordered the killing. Later that year, Josรฉ Francisco Ruiz Massieu, PRI secretary-general and Salinas’s former brother-in-law, was also murdered. The Salinas administration oversaw the violent suppression of the 1994 Zapatista uprising in Chiapas and widespread journalist killings. Salinas’s brother Raรบl was later convicted of orchestrating the Ruiz Massieu murder, and the family was linked to embezzled funds and cartel connections. Despite this brutality, the U.S. maintained close ties and pushed through NAFTA.

Read More:

โ–  1983 โ€“ Grenada โ€ข President Reagan (R)

7,000 U.S. troops invade the tiny Caribbean island following a Marxist coup. Operation Urgent Fury was justified as protecting American medical students, though critics noted the coincidental timing with political instability that threatened U.S. interests.

Post-Cold War to 21st Century

โ–  1989 โ€“ Panama โ€ข President G.H.W. Bush (R)

27,000 U.S. troops invade Panama to remove Manuel Noriega, a former CIA asset turned adversary. Operation Just Cause killed between 500-3,000 Panamanians, mostly civilians. Noriega had previously been on the CIA payroll during the 1970s and early 1980s.

Read More:

โ˜… 1991-1994 โ€“ Haiti โ€ข Presidents G.H.W. Bush (R), Clinton (D)

CIA allegedly pays and receives information from coup leaders (identified as drug traffickers) who overthrow democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Coup leaders Raoul Cรฉdras and Michel Franรงois had received U.S. military training. In 1994, U.S.-led Operation Uphold Democracy reinstates Aristide with UN approval.

Read More:

โ˜… 1996 โ€“ Russia โ€ข President Clinton (D)

U.S. interferes in Russian presidential elections to ensure Boris Yeltsin’s reelection. American political consultants openly worked on Yeltsin campaign, and IMF released a crucial loan just before the election.

โ˜… 2002 โ€“ Venezuela (First Attempt) โ€ข President G.W. Bush (R)

U.S. supports coup attempt against Hugo Chรกvez. Evidence later emerged of U.S. government meetings with coup plotters and immediate recognition of the brief interim government. The coup failed when popular protests and military loyalists restored Chรกvez to power within 48 hours.

Read More:

โ˜…/โ–  2003-present โ€“ Iraq โ€ข Presidents G.W. Bush (R), Obama (D), Trump (R), Biden (D)

Following the 2003 invasion, U.S. implemented wholesale regime change and reconstruction of the Iraqi government. The invasion was justified by false claims of WMDs. While Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator (previously supported by the U.S.), the invasion and occupation killed hundreds of thousands and destabilized the entire region.

โ˜… 2009 โ€“ Honduras โ€ข President Obama (D)

Military coup removes President Manuel Zelaya. While the U.S. officially condemned the coup, it continued military aid and quickly recognized the post-coup government. Hillary Clinton’s State Department worked to prevent Zelaya’s return and legitimize the coup government.

Read More:

โ˜… 2019-2020 โ€“ Bolivia โ€ข President Trump (R)

Following disputed elections, President Evo Morales resigns amid military pressure and flees the country. The U.S. immediately recognized the interim government despite questions about the legitimacy of the transition. Later analysis disputed the OAS claims of election fraud that justified the coup.

Read More:

โ˜…/โ–  2025 โ€“ Venezuela (Boat Bombings) โ€ข President Trump (R)

Current strikes on Venezuelan boats, covered in detail in the opening section of this article. This represents the latest escalation after years of sanctions, recognition of alternative government, and military pressure.

Ongoing Interventions: Taiwan & Philippines

โ˜…/โ–  1951-Present โ€“ Taiwan โ€ข All Presidents from Truman (D) through Trump (R)

Following Nationalist Chinese defeat in 1949 civil war, U.S. has provided continuous military and economic support to Taiwan. The 7th Fleet protects Taiwan from mainland China. While officially maintaining ‘strategic ambiguity,’ the U.S. has effectively prevented reunification for over 70 years, making this one of the longest-running American interventions. The Taiwan Relations Act (1979) commits U.S. to providing defensive weapons and maintaining capacity to resist force.

Read More: (just a few sources to start you off. Suggest adding China in as a parameter.)

โ˜…/โ–  1950s-Present โ€“ Philippines โ€ข All Presidents from Eisenhower (R) through Biden (D)

Following initial colonization (1898-1946), U.S. maintained Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base until 1992. After brief interruption, Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (2014) restored U.S. military presence. Philippines serves as key component of U.S. containment strategy in Asia, particularly regarding China.

Read More:

The Pattern and Its Consequences

From 1898 to 1994, the United States successfully intervened to change governments in Latin America at least 41 times. When expanded globally to include Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, the count exceeds 52 documented major interventions.

This does not include failed attempts like the Bay of Pigs or numerous instances where the U.S. acted to prevent coups against friendly governments.

Democratic Governments Overthrown

Of these interventions, at least 15 targeted democratically elected governments:

  • Cuba (1906) โ€“ Tomรกs Estrada Palma
  • Nicaragua (1910) โ€“ Josรฉ Santos Zelaya
  • Haiti (1915) โ€“ Democratic process disrupted, Rosalvo Bobo prevented from taking office
  • Iran (1953) โ€“ Mohammad Mosaddegh
  • Guatemala (1954) โ€“ Jacobo รrbenz
  • Brazil (1964) โ€“ Joรฃo Goulart
  • Chile (1973) โ€“ Salvador Allende
  • Nicaragua (1980s) โ€“ Sandinista government
  • Haiti (1991) โ€“ Jean-Bertrand Aristide
  • Venezuela (2002) โ€“ Hugo Chรกvez (attempt failed)
  • Honduras (2009) โ€“ Manuel Zelaya
  • Congo (1960-1961) โ€“ Patrice Lumumba
  • Plus numerous electoral interference operations in Italy, Philippines, Russia, and elsewhere

This represents more than one-quarter of all documented interventions targeting democratically elected governments. A pattern directly contradicting stated U.S. goals of promoting democracy.

Consistent Justifications

Throughout this history, U.S. officials have employed remarkably consistent justifications:

  • Protecting American business interests (United Fruit in Guatemala, oil in Venezuela and Iran)
  • Fighting communism or terrorism (shifting threats as needed)
  • Promoting democracy (while often overthrowing elected governments)
  • Protecting American citizens (medical students in Grenada, undefined threats today)
  • Combating drug trafficking (current Venezuelan rationale)

Devastating Results

Historian Lars Schoultz documents that even when the U.S. employed military force, it ‘rarely achieved the intended results.’ Instead of stability and democracy, interventions typically produced:

  • Brutal military dictatorships (Chile, Guatemala, Brazil, Iran, Iraq under Saddam, Indonesia)
  • Civil wars lasting decades (Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua)
  • Death tolls in the hundreds of thousands (Indonesia, Cambodia, El Salvador)
  • Destruction of democratic institutions
  • Endemic corruption and state violence
  • Refugee crises (Central American migration to U.S., Indochinese refugee crisis)
  • Deep anti-American resentment and blowback (Iranian Revolution, rise of Al-Qaeda)

A 1968 National Intelligence Estimate admitted that ‘in no case do insurgencies pose a serious short run threat’ and that ‘revolution seems unlikely in most Latin American countries within the next few years’ yet interventions continued anyway, driven more by domestic U.S. politics and abstract geopolitical theory than actual threats.

U.S.-Backed Dictators & Prevented Democratic Outcomes

Beyond the direct interventions documented above, the United States has consistently supported brutal dictatorships when they aligned with American interests, and prevented democratic outcomes when elections might produce unfavorable results. This pattern reveals that U.S. commitment to ‘democracy promotion’ was subordinate to maintaining regimes friendly to American economic and strategic interests.

Installed or Sustained Dictators

  • Fulgencio Batista (Cuba, 1952-1959) โ€“ U.S.-backed dictator overthrown by Castro
  • Anastasio Somoza Garcรญa & dynasty (Nicaragua, 1933-1979) โ€“ Three generations of U.S.-supported dictatorship
  • Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1930-1961) โ€“ Brutal dictator with U.S. support for three decades
  • Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran, 1953-1979) โ€“ Reinstalled by CIA coup, ruled with SAVAK secret police
  • Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973-1990) โ€“ Came to power in U.S.-backed coup, killed thousands
  • Suharto (Indonesia, 1967-1998) โ€“ Rose to power with CIA support, massacred up to 1 million communists
  • Saddam Hussein (Iraq, 1979-2003) โ€“ Received U.S. support during Iran-Iraq War despite using chemical weapons
  • Manuel Noriega (Panama, 1983-1989) โ€“ Former CIA asset turned adversary
  • Carlos Salinas (Mexico, 1988-1994) โ€“ Presided over political assassinations and violent suppression
  • Syngman Rhee (South Korea, 1948-1960) โ€“ Authoritarian ruler backed by U.S. over unified elections
  • Ngo Dinh Diem (South Vietnam, 1955-1963) โ€“ Installed by U.S. to prevent Ho Chi Minh election
  • Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire/Congo, 1965-1997) โ€“ Installed by CIA, kleptocratic dictator for three decades

Prevented Democratic Outcomes

In multiple cases, the U.S. actively prevented democratic elections or overthrew democratically elected governments because the likely results conflicted with American interests:

  • Vietnam (1954) โ€“ U.S. prevented Geneva Accords elections, knowing Ho Chi Minh would win
  • Korea (1945-1948) โ€“ U.S. backed Syngman Rhee over unified democratic elections
  • Iran (1953) โ€“ Overthrew democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh
  • Guatemala (1954) โ€“ Overthrew democratically elected Jacobo รrbenz
  • Brazil (1964) โ€“ Supported coup against democratically elected Joรฃo Goulart
  • Chile (1970-1973) โ€“ Worked to prevent Allende’s election, then overthrew him
  • Nicaragua (1980s) โ€“ Attempted to overthrow democratically elected Sandinistas
  • Venezuela (2002, 2019, 2025) โ€“ Multiple attempts against elected governments

Read More:

The Bipartisan Consensus That Never Changed

While domestic politics in the United States has undergone dramatic realignments – particularly on civil rights and race in the 1960s, and economic policy in the 1930s – one aspect has remained remarkably constant across both parties: interventionist foreign policy.

From 1898 to 2025, every category of intervention (occupations, coups, election interference, regime change operations) has been prosecuted by both Republican and Democratic administrations:

Republican Administrations

  • William McKinley (1898): Spanish-American War, Philippines colonization, Boxer Rebellion
  • Theodore Roosevelt (1903): Panama intervention
  • William Howard Taft (1912): Nicaragua occupation begins
  • Warren Harding (1921-1923): Continued Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican occupations
  • Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929): Continued occupations
  • Herbert Hoover (1929-1933): Final years of Banana Wars
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1954): Iran coup, Guatemala coup, Vietnam intervention, Lebanon, Philippines, Hungary, Tibet
  • Richard Nixon (1970-1973): Chile coup, Cambodia secret bombing, continued Vietnam War
  • Ronald Reagan (1980s): Nicaragua Contras, El Salvador support, Grenada invasion, Poland/Solidarity
  • George H.W. Bush (1989-1991): Panama invasion, continued Nicaragua/El Salvador, Haiti coup
  • George W. Bush (2002-2008): Venezuela coup support, Iraq invasion
  • Donald Trump (2019-2020): Bolivia coup support
  • Donald Trump (2025): Venezuela boat strikes

Democratic Administrations

  • Woodrow Wilson (1915-1920): Haiti occupation, Dominican Republic occupation, Russia intervention
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945): End of occupations, began Chinese Civil War support
  • Harry S. Truman (1945-1953): Korea division, Italy election interference, Japan occupation, Greece, Chinese Civil War, Vietnam
  • John F. Kennedy (1961-1963): Bay of Pigs, Congo coup, Dominican Republic (Trujillo), Iraq coup, Vietnam coup, Tibet
  • Lyndon B. Johnson (1964-1968): Brazil coup, Dominican Republic invasion, Indonesia massacre, Laos bombing, Vietnam War escalation
  • Bill Clinton (1991-2000): Haiti intervention, Russia election interference, Mexico/NAFTA
  • Barack Obama (2009-2016): Honduras coup support, continued Iraq/Afghanistan

The pattern is unmistakable. The debates between the two parties have focused on tactical questions. Which interventions to pursue, how openly to intervene, and what rhetorical justifications to employ (spreading democracy vs. fighting communism vs. combating terrorism). But the fundamental commitment to interventionism has remained bipartisan.

Why This Matters

This bipartisan consensus has profound implications for how we understand American foreign policy. Interventionism is not the product of one party’s ideology or another’s mistakes. It is an institutional practice embedded in U.S. foreign policy structures, justified by constantly evolving threats and executed with methods refined over more than a century.

The costs of this pattern are immeasurable: potentially millions of lives lost, democracies destroyed, societies traumatized, and sovereign nations’ development derailed. At least 15 democratically elected governments were overthrown or undermined by U.S. intervention. A direct contradiction of stated American values.

Read More:

Conclusion: An Institutional Practice

The Venezuelan boat bombings are not an anomaly or an overreach by one administration. They represent the latest application of methods and philosophies that have been institutionalized in U.S. foreign policy for over a century. The Office of Strategic Services pioneered centralized covert operations during World War II. The CIA refined and systematized these methods during the Cold War. Today’s operations differ in technology but not in essence.

The costs are immeasurable: hundreds of thousands of lives lost, at least 15 democracies destroyed, societies traumatized, and sovereign nations’ development derailed. The benefits are questionable at best. As historian John H. Coatsworth documents, even when interventions ‘succeeded’ in removing targeted governments, they rarely achieved stated goals of stability or democracy.

Understanding this history is crucial for evaluating current events. When the Trump administration claims the right to kill suspected drug traffickers in international waters without trial, without evidence, and without accountability, they are not innovating. They are continuing an institutional practice that stretches back through the CIA to the OSS and beyond to the era of gunboat diplomacy.

This isn’t new. This is America’s foreign policy playbook, written in blood across Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Caribbean for over a century. The question is not whether history is repeating itself. It clearly is. The question is whether we will finally recognize the pattern and demand accountability before more boats burn and more bodies sink beneath the Caribbean Sea.

Related Reading: Venezuela and Fentanyl: Debunking the Myth with U.S. Government Data

Methodology & Sources

This article documents over 52 major U.S. military interventions, covert operations, and regime change efforts from 1898 to 2025. The research draws from multiple authoritative sources:

Primary Sources

  • Congressional Research Service reports on military interventions
  • Declassified government documents from National Security Archive at George Washington University
  • CIA FOIA Reading Room documents
  • Office of the Historian (U.S. State Department) official histories
  • Senate Select Committee reports (Church Committee)
  • Pentagon Papers
  • International Court of Justice rulings

Academic Sources

  • Peer-reviewed journal articles from Latin American Studies, Cold War Studies, and diplomatic history
  • Books by historians Lars Schoultz, John H. Coatsworth, William Blum, Peter Kornbluh, and Stephen Kinzer
  • Research from major universities including Harvard, Yale, GWU, and UNC

Contemporary Reporting

  • AP News, Reuters, ABC News for current Venezuela crisis
  • Balanced coverage from multiple perspectives

Research and Writing Process

This article was created through a collaborative process between human journalist and AI assistant to ensure accuracy, comprehensiveness, and proper sourcing.

Human Responsibilities (Author):

  • Conceptualization and editorial direction
  • Primary source verification and fact-checking
  • Editorial judgment on inclusion/exclusion of events
  • Final approval of all claims and interpretations
  • Source link verification and archiving
  • Political and historical context validation
  • All final editorial decisions

AI Assistant Responsibilities (Claude – Anthropic):

  • Research assistance and source aggregation
  • Initial draft composition and structural organization
  • Citation formatting and consistency
  • Data compilation (casualties, costs, timelines)
  • Creation of interactive visualizations (timeline and map infographics)
  • Technical implementation of web-based graphics

Priority was given to:

  1. Declassified government documents
  2. Congressional Research Service reports
  3. Academic research and peer-reviewed sources
  4. Official government archives
  5. Multiple corroborating sources for contested claims

Limitations:

  • This article documents only interventions with available evidence
  • Classified operations remain unknown
  • Casualty figures are estimates based on available data
  • Cost calculations use current dollar conversions and may vary
  • Long-term costs (PTSD, family impact, etc.) are not fully quantified here

Source Preservation: Given the increasing removal of historical content from government and news websites, readers are encouraged to archive sources using Wayback Machine (archive.org) or similar services. The author maintains an archived copy of all sources for verification purposes.

Transparency Note: This collaborative methodology is disclosed to maintain journalistic transparency. All factual claims were verified by the human author, who takes full responsibility for the accuracy and editorial stance of this article.

Important Disclaimer: Likely Undercounting

The 52+ interventions documented in this article represent only those that are (1) well-documented in declassified materials or contemporary reporting, (2) involved direct U.S. military action or CIA operations, and (3) had significant impact on the target country. There are certainly more interventions that remain classified or were successfully kept covert. Additionally, this count does not include:

  • Economic warfare through sanctions and trade restrictions
  • Covert actions that failed or were aborted before implementation
  • Military aid programs that indirectly enabled human rights abuses
  • Diplomatic pressure and threats of intervention
  • Support for coups where direct U.S. role remains unproven but suspected
  • Ongoing intelligence operations that remain classified

As such, the true number of U.S. interventions is likely significantly higher than 52. This article documents only what can be substantiated through available evidence.

Source Archival

All sources should be archived using Wayback Machine (archive.org) or similar services to preserve the historical record, as links frequently break and content is sometimes removed. The author maintains a comprehensive source archive for verification purposes.

Source Balance

Sources were selected to provide balanced perspectives from across the political spectrum. The source legend identifies the general political leaning of each source:

๐Ÿ”ต Left-leaning source

๐Ÿ”ด Right-leaning source

๐ŸŸข Centrist/Nonpartisan source

โšซ Government/Official source

๐ŸŸค Academic/Research source

Wherever possible, claims are supported by multiple sources from different perspectives. Government documents and academic research were prioritized over partisan sources.

Acknowledgments

This article builds on decades of investigative journalism, academic research, and the work of historians who have documented U.S. foreign policy. Special recognition to the National Security Archive at George Washington University for their tireless work obtaining and publishing declassified documents through FOIA requests.

Leave a Comment

Verified by MonsterInsights