Legal or Not, Overthrow in Venezuela Was the Easy Part

Commentary differed Saturday on whether the US attack on Venezuela and accompanying removal of its president from power was legal—or even a good idea. There was more agreement that the overnight military operation did not solve all the issues involved. The editorial board of the New York Times is a no on both of the first two questions. Saying President Trump has escalated from illegal attacks on small boats in the Caribbean to an illegal attack on a nation, the editorial lists the damage Nicolas Maduro has done to his country—and to the Western Hemisphere. But there's a caution. "If there is an overriding lesson of American foreign affairs in the past century, however, it is that attempting to oust even the most deplorable regime can make matters worse," the Times says. The editorial can be found here.

The Wall Street Journal doesn't see a legal problem. The Constitution gives presidents room to act in the interest of national security, the paper's editorial board says, pointing out that President George H.W. Bush removed Manuel Noriega, another dictator, in Panama in 1989 without asking Congress. And Maduro stole Venezuela's presidential election last year. But if it's democracy Trump wants, the Journal says, his dismissal of Maria Corina Machado as not having the "respect" needed to rule doesn't make much sense. She did organize an opposition, win the election, face personal danger, and receive the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. What's next, if not Machado, isn't clear. "Whether he admits it or not," the Journal says, "Mr. Trump is now in the business of regime change that he'll have to make a success." The editorial can be found here.

A major lesson of the US action to overthrow a head of state is US military might, Nick Paton Walsh writes in an analysis for CNN. "Maduro's removal does not anoint a successor with a real popular mandate. Or resolve where the military's loyalties now lie. Or hobble the narco-trafficker colossus the US says Maduro led," Paton writes. What it does is create a situation that needs quick answers to questions such as who's in charge now, while sending a clear message about the US. "Expressions of unbridled power don't come blunter than abducting a sitting president from his capital in the dead of night," Paton says. His analysis can be found here.