In these tumultuous times, it’s refreshing to have some consistency from the White House, even if that consistency is rooted in obfuscation and bureaucratic acrobatics. The latest saga involves a second strike in early September, apparently orchestrated by Admiral Bradley, nestled snugly within his authority, or so they claim. All this has left Americans scratching their heads and perhaps a bit nostalgic for simpler times when the storyline was just about some missing emails.
Critics, predictably, are having a field day with this one. Is this an attempt by the White House to introduce regime change in Venezuela without having to endure the dull chatter of Congress about pesky details, like war powers? You know, the little things that were designed to prevent dictatorships. Looking through the fog of layered bureaucracy, one can’t help but wonder if the grandiose gestures of fleet movements are drifting into uncharted waters without a map.
What plays well in beltway theatrics doesn’t always translate into easy applause from the stands of everyday America. When you’re tuning into the evening news, you want to be assured that every operation against narco-traffickers is precise and purposeful. Yet, the second strike has left many scratching their heads, and for some Republicans, it has added a dollop of “wait just a minute” to the mix. They want details, oversight, and most importantly, accountability—an apparently revolutionary concept these days.
Now, talk of investigations has stirred as Republicans distance themselves a tad from the White House’s swashbuckling attitude of “strike first, clarify later.” It’s become increasingly clear they don’t want this second strike to become the career-ending iceberg for Admiral Bradley, who may find himself cannon fodder in a congressional inquisition. After all, while it’s tempting to just blow our enemies to smithereens, no one wants to explain collateral damage to a Senate committee.
Finally, while the intentions behind striking down notorious traffickers might resonate with the idea of waging an all-out war on drugs, the strategic picture remains as elusive as ever. The White House argues this is all about installing democracy in Venezuela and marginalizing the influences of China and Iran. Yet, without clarity in action and purpose, the administration risks unfolding a narrative not unlike a particularly gripping, yet implausible, soap opera. The audience—American voters—are left to ponder if this thrilling show ends in victory or ignominy. One thing’s for certain: keeping everyone guessing isn’t a sustainable strategy on the international stage.
