In my international relations classes, I encourage my students to not just express their (mostly negative) views of Trump’s foreign policy. I also ask them to reflect on the extent to which Trump’s actions are in line with the history of US foreign policy. Some see the United States as adhering to liberal international norms, with Trump a major break. Others argue the United States was always domineering and aggressive, so Trump shouldn’t be much of a surprise.

I thought of that as I read the news about the US intervention in Venezuela this weekend. I started out shocked; this feels like a flagrant violation of domestic and international norms. But then my shock wore off, as I thought of other, similar, instances from the history of US foreign policy.

There are many reasons to oppose this action, and what’s likely to come next. But until we figure out why we oppose it—i.e. whether this is an aberration from US foreign policy or just being honest about what we want—it will be impossible to formulate an alternative.

The reaction to Trump’s intervention

Most reactions to the intervention have been negative.

Many have discussed the consequences of the intervention. Some pointed to the dangers of military interventions without a clear plan for what comes next. Others argued the apparent plan to secure Venezuela’s oil supplies promises a complicated and costly occupation. Even neoconservatives like Elliot Abrams are skeptical due to the lack of planning; he called Trump’s statements “incomprehensible.” And an expert from the pro-Trump Heritage Foundation noted the complications involved in jumpstarting Venezuela’s oil industry.

We can find examples of what Trump did in the post-Cold War era. So what makes this so different?

Others focused on the illegality of the intervention. David French noted its violation of just war tradition, embedded in international law. Legal scholar Oona Hathaway discussed Trump’s disregard for international law concerning the use of force, as well as his dismissal of domestic rules concerning military action.

As of this writing I haven’t seen much of a defense from foreign policy wonks, besides this upcoming event at the Scowcroft Center, on a “new dawn for Venezuela” (I’m assuming it will be positive about the intervention based on the title).

How surprised should we be?

I’m firmly in the “this was a bad idea” camp. There was no imminent threat from Venezuela. It’s unclear that this will improve anything there. Trump needs Congressional authorization in the absence of an emergency, which didn’t exist. And we violated the UN Charter with what was basically an act of war. The Trump Administration sees this as a way to expand US power, whether by gaining access to oil, removing Chinese influence, or bullying other American states. Or all three.

But to what extent does this stick out from the history of the US’ engagement with the world?

We have used our military to gain control of other states in the past. The United States went to war with Mexico, seizing a massive territory from that state. A similar thing occurred a few decades later in a war with Spain, after which the United States became the colonial overlord of the Philippines.

Most commentary on the intervention focuses on what the intervention says about Trump rather than what it says about the United States.

Of course, this was a long time ago, before the UN Charter we helped create. And it is true that most US interventions during the Cold War involved covert action. The biggest exception of course is the Vietnam War, but this was justified as defending an ally against Communism. Likewise, the intervention in the Dominican Republic was part of a civil war there. And one can argue things have changed; we are no longer so obsessed with Communism.

But we can find examples of what Trump did—acting in contravention of domestic and international law to seize a foreign head of state—in the post-Cold War era. Indeed, a recent post here argued Trump’s growing appetite for regime change in Venezuela matches the logic of previous US interventions.

As many have brought up, George H.W. Bush invaded Panama to seize its President on drug charges. And of course his son invaded Iraq to overthrow its oppressive government. Neither of these had international legal approval or were in response to an imminent threat to US security.

Bill Clinton joined in the NATO bombing of Kosovo without explicit Congressional authorization, leading the ACLU to condemn the action as unconstitutional (this act also occurred without UN approval). Barack Obama also persisted in the military action in Libya despite Congressional opposition, and even argued that he had Constitutional authority as it was “in the national interest” and involved “limited operations.”

So what makes Trump’s intervention different?

Where does this fit in?

Most commentary on the intervention seems to be sidestepping this question, focusing on what the intervention says about Trump rather than what it says about the United States.

To be fair, some have raised it. Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress, discussed the US’ “infamous history of regime change” in her condemnation of the intervention. Hathaway also addressed this, with her interviewer noting that “Trump does some things that are really uniquely bad” and others that are “in line with” previous US Presidents. She argued that the problem is Trump “couldn’t care less about the fact that he’s breaking these rules,” which “suggests there may be no limits” to what he will do.

But until we directly confront this, it will be difficult to really push back on the Trump foreign policy. For example, Jake Sullivan and Jon Finer provide a fine critique of the intervention. That is, except for the fact that Sullivan was one of the people behind the Libya intervention, which was just as poorly-planned as Trump’s intervention. It makes it a little hard to take their criticism seriously if they don’t address their own side’s issues.

This brings us to the real question. Is Trump’s intervention in Venezuela a violation of the norms of US foreign policy? Or is it the extension of our tradition, albeit without lip service to ideals and values? Trump is just being honest about US intentions.

One could point to Trump’s action as distinct. Other interventions had altruistic reasons, even if they were lacking in legality or planning. Even the invasion of Panama was less illegitimate, as Panama had taken offensive actions against the United States. So the US tradition generally aspires to liberal norms, even if it usually falls short. Trump isn’t even trying. Trump’s opponents need to better make the case for liberal internationalism, and restore the United States to its true path.

At the same time, someone could claim there is nothing aberrant about Trump’s action. The naked power politics of 19th century US foreign policy never went away, the anti-Communist and later humanitarian justifications for interventions were just a cover for neo-colonial endeavors. Those who agree with this analysis would argue Trump’s actions represent a deeper issue in US history that can’t be solved with adjustments to grand strategy.

There are thus diametrically opposed responses to Trump’s foreign policy based on one’s answer to the question motivating this post. Until the question is answered, it will be impossible to come up with a viable alternative to the “Trump doctrine.”