Maduro is gone, but Venezuela is not free — and US taxpayers will pay the price

Earlier this week, the vice president of Nicolás Maduro was sworn in as the president of Venezuela in a ceremony attended by the officials who have led the country for years. The country’s top military commanders were in attendance, along with the interior minister who oversees the state’s repressive security service. Also present to congratulate him were the most powerful ambassadors in Caracas, from Russia to China to Iran.

Despite the success of our military and intelligence community that took Nicolás Maduro into government custody, the control of the country in Venezuela has not changed in a meaningful way. The same people continue to command key institutions.

That continues to have consequences. Networks related to drug trafficking and official corruption remain entrenched in the government, as are conditions that have caused more than seven million people to flee the country, many of them to the United States or neighboring countries such as Colombia and Peru. America’s enemies who are most invested in preserving this system remain involved.

AFTER MADURO, VENEZUELA’S POWER VCUUM IS CALMING CRUEL MEDIATORS AND RULES.

Changing that reality is more complicated than removing a single leader. It would mean reforming Venezuela’s security forces, dismantling state-owned criminal enterprises, stabilizing the collapsing economy and supporting credible democratic elections. Those efforts would require significant American resources and carry real risks, with no guarantee of success.

In this first phase, the United States has committed large forces and personnel to the region. About fifteen thousand US personnel and 20% of US Navy assets were stationed in the area during construction, supported by air assets. That scale shows how quickly a limited performance can become a lasting commitment.

Any expectation that Venezuela can quickly pay back, or reduce the cost of US involvement, is unrealistic. Restoring oil production in Venezuela is a long-term task. Years of mismanagement have destroyed infrastructure and driven away skilled workers. Bringing productivity back online at a high level will require long technical work and large private investment, under the security and management conditions that currently do not exist. In addition, US industries already have their hands full – they cannot abandon their domestic crude oil refining operations to prioritize Venezuelan oil. That’s why President Trump recently acknowledged that American taxpayers may be asked to reimburse oil companies that want to set up shop in Venezuela.

Meanwhile, the administration has dismantled US economic and democracy aid, including low-cost and targeted tools that would be critical to stabilizing Venezuela and supporting a transition away from corruption and crime control.

China, in contrast, has been using infrastructure, financing, and humanitarian support to expand its influence in Venezuela and throughout the region. Undermining US economic cooperation while signaling interest in extracting resources risks strengthening Beijing’s position, not weakening it – and this would be a message sent to the rest of the world: the US takes while China invests.

Together, addressing these challenges can amount to a multi-year commitment of resources, attention, and political economy, with uncertain outcomes and competing interests elsewhere. That commitment may grow, with the President showing interest in ever-expanding interventions in the hemisphere.

This trade-off is not mysterious. Long-term participation abroad competes with pressing domestic priorities, including reducing household costs, protecting access to health care, and maintaining domestic investment in access and economic growth.

Above all, I hear from my colleagues in New Hampshire that they want their elected leaders to focus on their pocketbook economic problems, on making their lives more affordable and reducing the cost of essential expenses such as housing, health care, energy and everyday essentials. They recognize the importance of America playing a positive and powerful role in the world, but they do not want their elected leaders to ignore their economic priorities.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW MORE FOX NEWS

President Trump acknowledged those concerns during his campaign for office, but his agenda since — from spending on lodging to health care cuts — has had the opposite effect. Americans are increasingly feeling pressured by the high cost of living. The president has also campaigned on a restrained foreign policy that avoids the kind of nation-building commitments we’ve seen before, but when it comes to Venezuela and the Western Hemisphere, we see him pursuing a very different path. Threats and actions to occupy or occupy a sovereign territory are not only unpopular with the American people; they are among the most expensive and difficult partnerships and alliances, creating more space for US adversaries like Russia and China to take advantage.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM

Americans know that our country — and the world — is stronger, safer and more successful when we engage and address what is happening beyond our borders. But they are keenly aware of the real trade-offs that exist when our leaders drag us into expensive overseas commitments without a clear game plan or strategy.

Currently, the president has drawn the United States into potentially long-term involvement in Venezuela and beyond. So far, we have heard no consistent rationale for our involvement, let alone a sound long-term strategy for how to stabilize and transform Venezuela into a thriving democracy — long a shared goal of Republicans and Democrats. It is important that the administration be transparent with the American people and Congress about the costs that will be incurred and the real trade-offs involved. And in this process, it is important that the administration does not maintain private programs and institutions that it once saw as a threat to US national security.