During Monday’s episode of Human Events Daily, host Jack Posobiec questioned whether President Donald Trump’s successful extraction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro constitutes a regime change operation or a more limited action that left the existing system in place.
“When we look at this scenario,” Posobiec said, “Maduro is gone, and yet the regime is largely still in place.” He questioned whether the removal of Maduro alone meets the definition of regime change. “Does it qualify then as regime change, or is it more of a regime alteration where you’re just getting rid of one guy?” Posobiec asked.
Posobiec compared the situation to previous US interventions, stating, “This is what we saw in Iraq. It’s not what we saw in Afghanistan.” He also referenced President Trump’s rejection of proposals to install opposition leader María Corina Machado, saying Trump had “poured cold water on the idea” of placing her in power.
“So I don’t think you can call this a regime change war or operation at this time,” Former Pentagon official and USMC vet Dan Caldwell said.
Caldwell said the broader Chavista system remains operational despite Maduro’s removal. “As we sit here today,” Caldwell said, “the Maduro and Chávez regime, its infrastructure still exists.” He added, “The security forces are still in place, its key leaders are still in place, and they’re still running the country day to day.” Caldwell said the Trump administration made a deliberate decision to work with the remnants of the regime rather than attempt a full overthrow. “The president and his administration, in my view, have made the right decision to deal with the remnants of that regime,” he said.
Caldwell stated there is no domestic opposition capable of assuming control of the Venezuelan government. “There isn’t an opposition force in the country that can swoop in and take over the Venezuelan government,” he said. He added that replacing regime officials would require them to be “pushed out, flee the country, imprisoned, or killed,” and said opposition forces “are not in the country in enough force that they can effectively do that.”
He said the remaining option would be direct US military intervention. “They can either send in massive numbers of American troops, do what we did in Iraq,” Caldwell said, including a de-Ba'athification-style effort to remove regime supporters. He said that approach “created a lot of chaos in the country.”
“There’s a high risk you’d have the same result,” he said, citing the possibility of civil war and regime collapse.
He said such instability would undermine US objectives. “It would make it harder to send illegal immigrants back to Venezuela,” Caldwell said. “It’d be harder to rehabilitate the Venezuelan oil industry. It’d likely have spillover effects in the broader region.”
Caldwell also warned it could “lead to more Venezuelans trying to illegally immigrate to the United States.”
He said the administration’s current approach is aimed at maintaining stability. “The best option forward is to maintain a semblance of stability by working with the Maduro regime,” Caldwell said, adding that any future transition should be based on “what is ultimately best for the security and stability of Venezuela and the Western Hemisphere,” rather than ideological goals.
“When we look at this scenario,” Posobiec said, “Maduro is gone, and yet the regime is largely still in place.” He questioned whether the removal of Maduro alone meets the definition of regime change. “Does it qualify then as regime change, or is it more of a regime alteration where you’re just getting rid of one guy?” Posobiec asked.
Posobiec compared the situation to previous US interventions, stating, “This is what we saw in Iraq. It’s not what we saw in Afghanistan.” He also referenced President Trump’s rejection of proposals to install opposition leader María Corina Machado, saying Trump had “poured cold water on the idea” of placing her in power.
“So I don’t think you can call this a regime change war or operation at this time,” Former Pentagon official and USMC vet Dan Caldwell said.
Caldwell said the broader Chavista system remains operational despite Maduro’s removal. “As we sit here today,” Caldwell said, “the Maduro and Chávez regime, its infrastructure still exists.” He added, “The security forces are still in place, its key leaders are still in place, and they’re still running the country day to day.” Caldwell said the Trump administration made a deliberate decision to work with the remnants of the regime rather than attempt a full overthrow. “The president and his administration, in my view, have made the right decision to deal with the remnants of that regime,” he said.
Caldwell stated there is no domestic opposition capable of assuming control of the Venezuelan government. “There isn’t an opposition force in the country that can swoop in and take over the Venezuelan government,” he said. He added that replacing regime officials would require them to be “pushed out, flee the country, imprisoned, or killed,” and said opposition forces “are not in the country in enough force that they can effectively do that.”
He said the remaining option would be direct US military intervention. “They can either send in massive numbers of American troops, do what we did in Iraq,” Caldwell said, including a de-Ba'athification-style effort to remove regime supporters. He said that approach “created a lot of chaos in the country.”
“There’s a high risk you’d have the same result,” he said, citing the possibility of civil war and regime collapse.
He said such instability would undermine US objectives. “It would make it harder to send illegal immigrants back to Venezuela,” Caldwell said. “It’d be harder to rehabilitate the Venezuelan oil industry. It’d likely have spillover effects in the broader region.”
Caldwell also warned it could “lead to more Venezuelans trying to illegally immigrate to the United States.”
He said the administration’s current approach is aimed at maintaining stability. “The best option forward is to maintain a semblance of stability by working with the Maduro regime,” Caldwell said, adding that any future transition should be based on “what is ultimately best for the security and stability of Venezuela and the Western Hemisphere,” rather than ideological goals.
