4 ms·

To briefly quantify some things: US public support at the onset of the Afghanistan invasion polled at 88% [a]; at the onset of the Iraq invasion, 62%, rising to

To briefly quantify some things: US public support at the onset of the Afghanistan invasion polled at 88% [a]; at the onset of the Iraq invasion, 62%, rising to 72% [b]; and Venezuela here and now polls at 30% supporting "U.S. taking military action in Venezuela" [c] (Nov. 19–21 2025). [a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_public_opinion_on_the_war_in_Afghanistan#International_public_opinion_compared_to_American_public_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_public_opinion_o... [b] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_S... [c] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-venezuela-u-s-military-action-trump/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-venezuela-u-s-military-act...

belorn 10mo ago
Public opinion in 2001 and 2003 followed the 9/11 terror attack and was very fresh in peoples mind. A more recent war (2015) would be the attack on Yemen by Barack Obama. I can however not find any good public opinion for that war.
- gusgus01 10mo ago
  We've been bombing Yemen on and off since post 9/11, including a rather large attack with UK support just last year (2025). Are you thinking of the Saudi-led intervention that occurred in 2015 in Yemen as part of the Yemeni civil war? Or maybe when we built a base there in 2011 to facilitate more drones?
- estearum 10mo ago
  I don't think Americans perceive much of a difference between attacking Al Qaeda++ in Afghanistan versus in Yemen, certainly not enough to see it as "a different war", and it's not clear that perception is incorrect.
  - Fade_Dance 10mo ago
    Entirely different, from an American perspective. Afghanistan had the context of 9/11. All Americans knew about 9/11, and most cared strongly about it. I doubt most Americans know anything about Yemen or know anything about any US involvement there, nor do they care. Military strikes in Yemen aren't seen as the same war. Afghanistan and Iraq were boots on the ground, building up military bases, hearing about the occasional death of US personnel, etc. It's also decades apart. When it comes to Yemen, the average American is probably entirely unaware of it, and the ones that do know about it are definitely going to place it in the Palestine/Israel context (which has huge mindshare circulation here, All things considered - we usually just ignore things outside of US borders and this is ultra politicized here). Maybe without that element, there would be more truth to what you were saying, but it's definitely in the Israel/Hamas war bucket as of now.
    - estearum 10mo ago
      I think Americans are broadly aware that the US has been striking AQ, AQ++, and ISIS affiliates across the Middle East as part of the broader GWOT/OIR for years, and the exact jurisdictions in which it happens are essentially implementation details. As of a few months ago, when the US began striking Yemen for purpose of defending Israel, it ha become loosely affiliated with that conflict, but the period discussed was Obama era.
      - naijaboiler 10mo ago
        Correct. Most americans view those targetted strikes as just continuation of the broader wars against terrorism (AQ, AQ++, ISIS affiliates)
spwa4 10mo ago
Ironically it's very possible the support for US military intervention is higher among Venezuelans than US citizens. On the plus side, that's probably good for the odds of success. On the minus side, they're not paying the bill.
- pjc50 10mo ago
  Do we know who's been installed as a replacement? As with Libya, getting rid of a bad leader doesn't necessarily make the situation better.
  - ReflectedImage 10mo ago
    Replacement? They haven't overthrown the Venezuela government just captured it's figure head.
    - malcolmxxx 10mo ago
      True. Maduro has not been the president since the last elections; he merely usurped the position. You cannot perform such an action without facing some constraints. For him, personally, maybe this was the better outcome.
  - Qem 10mo ago
    The vice-president: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delcy_Rodr%C3%ADguez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delcy_Rodr%C3%ADguez
  - speed_spread 10mo ago
    They don't care about "better" they just want the oil reserves for themselves.
    - spwa4 10mo ago
      First, read up on Venezuela's oil. I don't think that's the case. At the very least it's very expensive oil, hard to use and very bad for engines, refineries and for the environment and also oil is over (meaning oil will go into terminal decline probably before 2028 and that will be the end of the oil companies) Second, when the US did have Venezuela's oil things were going a lot better in Venezuela for the whole population. So would that really be such a bad thing? Third, Chavez made things so bad in Venezuela it's tough to imagine this making it worse. Oh and then he died and Maduro came ... and made things worse.
blell 10mo ago
I suspect that invading and bombing a country for a few hours and then pulling out is not what most people will have in mind when you mention "taking military action". People are much, much more likely to remember the military quagmires in Vietnam or the Middle East, which have absolutely nothing to do with what occurred here.
- pas 10mo ago
  Let's see what happens if they get sucked into supporting the new regime. Amazing prospects already!
  - blell 10mo ago
    That’s what remains to be seen. Although I suppose the US could always wash their hands.
  - Qem 10mo ago
    What new regime? The president was kidnapped. The vice-president[1] assumed meanwhile. I wouldn't count that as new regime. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delcy_Rodr%C3%ADguez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delcy_Rodr%C3%ADguez
- Jolter 10mo ago
  Taking out Maduro is likely to lead to similar consequences as toppling Saddam, isn’t it? I predict the nation will be very unstable for decades ahead. The action is smaller scale, but the ethics of it are the same: it’s abhorrent. The justifications are paper-thin ”the people deserve democracy”, while everyone knows the only interest served is that of the US government.
  - dmix 10mo ago
    That’s the same talking point the far right uses for why the US shouldn’t get involved in Ukraine because they worry about a destabilized Russia if Putin goes away. It’s some sort of dictator insurance policy. The idea that they are there because the country will likely just do it again but worse given the chance.
Roark66 10mo ago
I think this is a very good indicator US has been transitioning away from democracy towards something else for quite a while and now it has reached a point where no justification for an illegal war is even required. After the Iraq war we(US allies that were dragged into this war by a bunch of lies) felt like this was very bad, but it was a blunder of one administration and the trust in the US as a whole was going to be restored. Now, no one even pretends this is the case.
- guerrilla 10mo ago
  > After the Iraq war we(US allies that were dragged into this war by a bunch of lies) felt like this was very bad, but it was a blunder of one administration and the trust in the US as a whole was going to be restored. I don't understand how people can be this naive. It's the only thing the US has ever done for the entirety of it's existence! How did you miss that?

belorn 10mo ago

Public opinion in 2001 and 2003 followed the 9/11 terror attack and was very fresh in peoples mind. A more recent war (2015) would be the attack on Yemen by Barack Obama. I can however not find any good public opinion for that war.

gusgus01 10mo ago
We've been bombing Yemen on and off since post 9/11, including a rather large attack with UK support just last year (2025). Are you thinking of the Saudi-led intervention that occurred in 2015 in Yemen as part of the Yemeni civil war? Or maybe when we built a base there in 2011 to facilitate more drones?
estearum 10mo ago
I don't think Americans perceive much of a difference between attacking Al Qaeda++ in Afghanistan versus in Yemen, certainly not enough to see it as "a different war", and it's not clear that perception is incorrect.
- Fade_Dance 10mo ago
  Entirely different, from an American perspective. Afghanistan had the context of 9/11. All Americans knew about 9/11, and most cared strongly about it. I doubt most Americans know anything about Yemen or know anything about any US involvement there, nor do they care. Military strikes in Yemen aren't seen as the same war. Afghanistan and Iraq were boots on the ground, building up military bases, hearing about the occasional death of US personnel, etc. It's also decades apart. When it comes to Yemen, the average American is probably entirely unaware of it, and the ones that do know about it are definitely going to place it in the Palestine/Israel context (which has huge mindshare circulation here, All things considered - we usually just ignore things outside of US borders and this is ultra politicized here). Maybe without that element, there would be more truth to what you were saying, but it's definitely in the Israel/Hamas war bucket as of now.
  - estearum 10mo ago
    I think Americans are broadly aware that the US has been striking AQ, AQ++, and ISIS affiliates across the Middle East as part of the broader GWOT/OIR for years, and the exact jurisdictions in which it happens are essentially implementation details. As of a few months ago, when the US began striking Yemen for purpose of defending Israel, it ha become loosely affiliated with that conflict, but the period discussed was Obama era.
    - naijaboiler 10mo ago
      Correct. Most americans view those targetted strikes as just continuation of the broader wars against terrorism (AQ, AQ++, ISIS affiliates)

spwa4 10mo ago

Ironically it's very possible the support for US military intervention is higher among Venezuelans than US citizens. On the plus side, that's probably good for the odds of success. On the minus side, they're not paying the bill.

pjc50 10mo ago
Do we know who's been installed as a replacement? As with Libya, getting rid of a bad leader doesn't necessarily make the situation better.
- ReflectedImage 10mo ago
  Replacement? They haven't overthrown the Venezuela government just captured it's figure head.
  - malcolmxxx 10mo ago
    True. Maduro has not been the president since the last elections; he merely usurped the position. You cannot perform such an action without facing some constraints. For him, personally, maybe this was the better outcome.
- Qem 10mo ago
  The vice-president: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delcy_Rodr%C3%ADguez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delcy_Rodr%C3%ADguez
- speed_spread 10mo ago
  They don't care about "better" they just want the oil reserves for themselves.
  - spwa4 10mo ago
    First, read up on Venezuela's oil. I don't think that's the case. At the very least it's very expensive oil, hard to use and very bad for engines, refineries and for the environment and also oil is over (meaning oil will go into terminal decline probably before 2028 and that will be the end of the oil companies) Second, when the US did have Venezuela's oil things were going a lot better in Venezuela for the whole population. So would that really be such a bad thing? Third, Chavez made things so bad in Venezuela it's tough to imagine this making it worse. Oh and then he died and Maduro came ... and made things worse.

blell 10mo ago

I suspect that invading and bombing a country for a few hours and then pulling out is not what most people will have in mind when you mention "taking military action". People are much, much more likely to remember the military quagmires in Vietnam or the Middle East, which have absolutely nothing to do with what occurred here.

pas 10mo ago
Let's see what happens if they get sucked into supporting the new regime. Amazing prospects already!
- blell 10mo ago
  That’s what remains to be seen. Although I suppose the US could always wash their hands.
- Qem 10mo ago
  What new regime? The president was kidnapped. The vice-president[1] assumed meanwhile. I wouldn't count that as new regime. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delcy_Rodr%C3%ADguez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delcy_Rodr%C3%ADguez
Jolter 10mo ago
Taking out Maduro is likely to lead to similar consequences as toppling Saddam, isn’t it? I predict the nation will be very unstable for decades ahead. The action is smaller scale, but the ethics of it are the same: it’s abhorrent. The justifications are paper-thin ”the people deserve democracy”, while everyone knows the only interest served is that of the US government.
- dmix 10mo ago
  That’s the same talking point the far right uses for why the US shouldn’t get involved in Ukraine because they worry about a destabilized Russia if Putin goes away. It’s some sort of dictator insurance policy. The idea that they are there because the country will likely just do it again but worse given the chance.

Roark66 10mo ago

I think this is a very good indicator US has been transitioning away from democracy towards something else for quite a while and now it has reached a point where no justification for an illegal war is even required. After the Iraq war we(US allies that were dragged into this war by a bunch of lies) felt like this was very bad, but it was a blunder of one administration and the trust in the US as a whole was going to be restored. Now, no one even pretends this is the case.

guerrilla 10mo ago
> After the Iraq war we(US allies that were dragged into this war by a bunch of lies) felt like this was very bad, but it was a blunder of one administration and the trust in the US as a whole was going to be restored. I don't understand how people can be this naive. It's the only thing the US has ever done for the entirety of it's existence! How did you miss that?