to the editor: President Trump has always understood that power in modern politics is not simply exercised; is done (“Trump says US will 'rule' Venezuela after capturing Maduro in audacious attack,” January 3). His cultivated unpredictability on the world stage functions less as a coherent foreign policy and more as a spectacle, a stance that plays directly to a segment of his base, including white nationalist supporters who equate dominance with national rebirth. In this worldview, diplomacy signals weakness, moderation invites exploitation, and volatility itself becomes evidence of strength.
For these supporters, there is a visceral thrill in watching the United States act like a geopolitical bully: loud, erratic and feared. The issue, at least politically, is not strategic gain but emotional reward. The chaos becomes proof that America is no longer limited by rules or norms and that power has been regained solely through force of will.
The costs, however, are profound. International stability depends on predictability, trust and alliances that deter conflict before it breaks out. When the United States embraces belligerent uncertainty, it does not bully its adversaries into submission; galvanizes them. Anti-American sentiment hardens, alliances fray, and extremist groups acquire a powerful recruiting narrative built around grievance and resistance.
This is where unpredictability becomes dangerous. Instability abroad increases the likelihood of asymmetric retaliation, including terrorism. Those attacks then validate the same narrative that produced the instability in the first place: a nation besieged by enemies and justified in an escalation of force. The cycle feeds on itself.
We are entering a period in which intimidation replaces leadership and spectacle replaces foresight.
Mark Wyatt, Greenacres, California.
..
to the editor: Historically, American military action came after gaining the support of a coalition of the willing. That meant collaboration and/or support from our allies. To be sure, that definition has changed to now refer to Trump's “coalition of willing American sycophants”: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
Apparently, not even our elected representatives in the United States Congress are included or trusted in the discussion, formulation or approval of invasion policies.
Trump's foreign policy was called “America First.” Clearly, what that meant was “United States only.”
What is left of American and international law that this administration will not violate with impunity? I guess only time will tell.
Joel Pelcyger, Los Angeles
..
to the editor: This recalls the capture of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega by US forces in 1989 under President George HW Bush. Noriega was accused of several violations similar to those faced by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tried and convicted here, and then also tried and convicted in France and Panama.
We should let this situation play out in our justice system like that one did. Let's see the results without partisan interference.
Marcus Kourtjian, Northridge
..
to the editor: Maduro certainly has questions to answer in his own country, but Trump is acting like an increasingly reckless and lawless dictator. He is the one who should be in jail.
Whatever is happening in Venezuela is not our problem to interfere, especially with things so absurd and probably illegal measures. There are many ways to influence the policies of other countries, short of military capture of the leader of a sovereign nation. The idea that Trump could “govern” Venezuela is scandalous.
Trump claimed for years that it should be “America First” and that we should not get involved in foreign wars. Yet now, despite having served no prison time for his own felony convictions, he is pursuing alleged criminals in other countries on flimsy grounds, without congressional sanction, and with the blatant use of measures that have been widely criticized as illegal.
TR Jahns, Hemet
..
to the editor: Ignore the pretexts to start a war. It's the oil, stupid.
Robert Campbell, Palos Verdes Estates
..
to the editor: Despite what Trump says, the nation and the world do not need more oil, not from Venezuela or anywhere else. The planet continues to warm at an alarming rate due to the burning of oil, which experts predict will lead to environmental catastrophes that will compromise our health, our food supply and our property.
Alternatives to burning oil are already in use and need to be expanded, but Trump and his administration's obsession with burning and manufacturing products from oil is leading us down the wrong path.
Matthew Hetz, Los Angeles
..
to the editor: What are we doing about it? Are we calling emergency meetings of all our political groups? Are we asking that city councils meet with our representatives so that our communities can share their opinions and the representatives can present their options and promise to act on all of them? Are our grassroots political groups lobbying in person? Are you writing and calling our representatives, both on behalf of the groups and individually? Are they calling for a boycott? Are protest marches taking place where they will have the greatest impact? We need to do something.
Gloria Valladolid, Ojai
