To the editor: President Trump has always understood that power in modern politics is not merely exercised; it is performed (“Trump says U.S. will ‘run’ Venezuela after capturing Maduro in audacious attack,” Jan. 3). His cultivated unpredictability on the world’s stage functions less as coherent foreign policy and more as spectacle, a posture that plays directly to a segment of his base, including white nationalist supporters who equate dominance with national revival. In this worldview, diplomacy signals weakness, restraint invites exploitation, and volatility itself becomes evidence of strength.
For these supporters, there is a visceral thrill in watching the United States act as a geopolitical bully — loud, erratic and feared. The point, at least politically, is not strategic gain but emotional payoff. Chaos becomes proof that America is no longer constrained by rules or norms, and that power has been reclaimed by force of will alone.
The costs, however, are profound. International stability relies on predictability, trust and alliances that deter conflict before it erupts. When the United States embraces belligerent uncertainty, it does not cow adversaries into submission; it galvanizes them. Anti-American sentiment hardens, alliances fray, and extremist groups gain a powerful recruiting narrative built around grievance and resistance.
This is where unpredictability turns dangerous. Instability abroad increases the likelihood of asymmetric retaliation, including terrorism. Those attacks then validate the very narrative that produced the instability in the first place: a nation besieged by enemies and justified in escalating force. The cycle feeds itself.
We enter a period where intimidation replaces leadership, and spectacle substitutes foresight.
Mark Wyatt, Greenacres, Calif.
..
To the editor: Historically, American military action came after support from a coalition of the willing was obtained. That meant collaboration with and/or endorsement of our allies. That definition has undoubtedly changed to now mean “the coalition of the willing American sycophants” of Trump: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
Apparently, not even our elected representatives in the U.S. Congress are included or trusted in discussing, formulating or approving policies of invasion.
Trump’s foreign policy was called “America First.” Clearly, what that meant was “America only.”
What is left of American and international law that this administration won’t violate with impunity? I guess only time will tell.
Joel Pelcyger, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: This is reminiscent of U.S. forces’ seizure of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega in 1989 under President George H. W. Bush. Noriega was charged with various violations similar to those facing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tried and convicted here, and then tried and convicted in France and Panama as well.
We should let this situation play out in our justice system as that one did. Let’s see the results without partisan interference.
Marcus Kourtjian, Northridge
..
To the editor: No doubt, Maduro has questions to answer in his own country, but Trump is acting like an increasingly reckless and lawless dictator himself. He’s the one who should be in jail.
Whatever is going on in Venezuela is not our problem to interfere with, especially with such absurd and likely illegal measures. There are many ways to influence policies in other countries short of military capture of a sovereign nation’s leader. The notion that Trump can “run” Venezuela is outrageous.
Trump claimed for years that it should be “America First” and we shouldn’t be involved in foreign wars. Yet now, despite not having served jail time for his own felony convictions, he’s going after supposed criminals in other countries with flimsy rationale, no congressional sanction and brazen use of measures that have been widely criticized as illegal.
TR Jahns, Hemet
..
To the editor: Ignore the pretextual rationales for starting a war. It’s the oil, stupid.
Robert Campbell, Palos Verdes Estates
..
To the editor: Despite what Trump says, the nation and world does not need more oil, from Venezuela or elsewhere. The planet continues to warm alarmingly from the burning of oil, which experts predict will lead to environmental catastrophes compromising our health, food supply and property.
The alternatives to burning oil are already in use and need to be expanded, but Trump and his administration’s fixation on burning and making products from oil are leading us down the wrong path.
Matthew Hetz, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: What are we doing about this? Are we calling for emergency meetings of all our political groups? Are we asking for town halls to meet with our representatives so 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 they writing and calling our representatives, both on behalf of the groups and individually? Are they calling for boycotts? Are there protest marches happening where they’ll be most impactful? We need to do something.
Gloria Valladolid, Ojai