A long U.S. stay in Venezuela? What past interventions reveal : NPR
NPR’s Steve Inskeep speaks with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius about what keeping the U.S. in Venezuela for years might look like and the history of U.S. involvement in other countries.
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
David Ignatius listened to us. He’s a Washington Post columnist who covers foreign affairs and has seen many presidents come and go. David, welcome back.
DAVID IGNATIUS: Thank you, Steve.
INSKEEP: When you hear the president say that the United States will rule Venezuela for well over a year and, quote, “we have to rebuild the country,” what does that make you think?
IGNATIUS: So that makes me think that this is an indefinite commitment. When I think back to the famous question David Petraeus asked on the way to Baghdad in 2003, tell me how it ends, no one can give an answer to that question about Venezuela, least of all, it seems, President Trump. He doesn’t know it. He is quite frank when he says this. We know that this is not a regime change because elements of the old regime are still in power in Caracas. So we don’t really know what it is or how long it will last, or how big the U.S. military or other commitment will be.
INSKEEP: But we know it’s a bigger commitment than it seemed at first. Some have argued that the administration’s early approach was wise. They said this is just an enforcement operation, that we’re just taking one guy, that we’re not doing regime change. But he now appears to be talking about a much larger agenda if he says he will rebuild the country on a much more profitable basis.
IGNATIUS: Steve, what has struck me over the last week is the almost intoxicating effect of the use of military power for an American president. Trump is not the first person we have seen this with. This was clear with George W. Bush in 2003. Early on, in the optimistic days of Vietnam, you could see it in LBJ. There is something about the use of military power that puts the president in a different space. There can be nothing like this on Earth. The US military is so strong and devastating in this attack.
And that obviously got Trump talking about power in a different way, about unfettered power. In an interview with the New York Times, he said that I have no limits except my own morality. But not international law. This isn’t going to stop me. Clearly, he doesn’t think Congress has a role in stopping it. He possesses a power that no other leader possesses. And he is determined to use it to get what he wants, even if it means demanding the sale, or even the seizure of Greenland, to take the latest example.
INSKEEP: Well, the administration ignored international law, it seems, and didn’t have to worry too much about Congress. However, a congressional vote was taken to attempt to limit the president’s future action in Venezuela. But I want to ask about another possible limit. Is it possible that the president, like other presidents, is discovering that his actions are limited not by his morality, but by reality, the realities of the world?
IGNATIUS: So they are limited by the patience of the American people. This is what George W. Bush, other presidents and certainly LBJ discovered. Americans like to intervene. We are an aggressive and interventionist country. But people are growing tired of these commitments. So, with Vietnam, with Lebanon, where I began my career as a foreign journalist, certainly with Iraq and Afghanistan, we saw the United States tired of the commitment it had made.
And ultimately, the audience just wasn’t ready to continue. They wanted to get out. Trump was elected in part because people thought he was the president who would change this interventionist trend. And obviously (laughs), that’s not what we see. We see a president as interventionist as any I can remember.
INSKEEP: And, to state the obvious, the United States did not sign up for a long-term commitment to Venezuela because Congress, among other things, had not signed on in advance.
IGNATIUS: Well, now you see some reluctance on the part of Republicans, Republicans are taking this rare step of defying the president and saying they want more congressional oversight power over this war. I mean, there’s a reason, Steve, why the founders wanted Congress to have the power to wage war, because they wanted more deliberations on compacts like this that involve the entire country.
INSKEEP: David Ignatius of the Washington Post. It’s always a pleasure to talk with you, sir. THANKS.
IGNATIUS: Thanks, Steve.
(SOUNDBITE OF THE NORTH AMERICANS’ “THE LAST ROCKABILLY”)
Copyright © 2026 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit the terms of use and permissions pages on our website at www.npr.org for more information.
The accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. The text of the transcript may be edited to correct errors or match updates to the audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio recording.
