Q&A: How does the US military action in Venezuela compare to the 1989 events in Panama?

The United States’ recent military intervention in Venezuela and the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro have drawn comparisons to the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama and the arrest of Manuel Noriega.

Although the two events seem to have much in common, UVA Today checked in with Miller Center of Public Affairs expert Robert A. Strong, a nonresident faculty senior fellow at the center and emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University, to see how they compare.

Q. It’s been more than three decades since the U.S. action in Panama. Would you describe the events that led to it?

Robert A. Strong

Robert A. Strong is a nonresident faculty senior fellow at the UVA Miller Center for Public Affairs and emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University. (Contributed photo)

A. In 1989, the American people were united in opposition to Panama’s dictator. Seymour Hersh, the accomplished investigative journalist, had published an expose of Noriega’s involvement in the murder of his political opponents and flagrant violations of human rights. 

Congress was full of Noriega critics. Two senators on opposite sides of the aisle – Democrat John Kerry and Republican Jesse Helms – worked together to block American aid to Panama because Noriega’s nation was clearly involved in the shipment of illicit drugs to the United States. Two separate American grand juries indicted Noriega for money laundering and drug trafficking.

Opposition to Noriega rose when former President Jimmy Carter and other international election watchers called out fraud in Panamanian voting in the spring of 1989. Noriega’s thugs attacked one of the opposition candidates just after the election, and the image of his bloody face was seen in news coverage across America and around the world – a photograph that went viral before things going viral was a common experience.

Noriega had declining support in Panama, no real allies in Latin America and an American public fully aware of his crimes.

Q. What sparked the U.S. military intervention in Panama?

A. On Dec. 16, 1989, Panamanian military personnel at a roadblock in Panama City opened fire on a group of off-duty American servicemen driving away from their barrier. One serviceman was killed, another wounded. A naval officer and his wife, who witnessed the roadblock shooting, were taken into custody. The officer was beaten, and his wife harassed. When the details of these events reached President George H.W. Bush at a weekend White House meeting, Bush ordered the … intervention.

Discovery and Innovation: Daily research. Life-changing results.
Discovery and Innovation: Daily research. Life-changing results.

American interventions in Latin America have a long history and are never welcome among America’s neighbors in the hemisphere. But the international and Latin American criticism of the Bush intervention in Panama was milder than might have been expected. This might have been because the military operation was over in a matter of days and put in office a new Panamanian government led by those who had won the national election in the spring. The U.S. resumed aid to Panama after the intervention, ended sanctions and helped in the training of new security forces for the nation.

Q. How does the military operation in Venezuela compare?

A. In many ways, President Donald Trump’s intervention in Venezuela is different from the Bush intervention in Panama.

The American military forces in Venezuela captured and removed a dictator, succeeding in the type of modest mission that Bush rejected in the planning for Panama in 1989. The Bush plan to fully defeat Panama’s military forces in an operation that would be over in a matter of days would simply not be possible for the U.S. to accomplish in Venezuela today.

The politics are also different. The American people understood what Bush was doing in Panama. In the 1988 campaign, he clearly criticized Noriega, supported the indictments against him, and declared the drug trade to be a major issue for the United States. 

Since September 2025, the Trump administration has raised tensions with Venezuela and destroyed small boats off its coast. The claims that the U.S. must fight narco-terrorism with sophisticated drone and missile attacks against tiny shipments of cocaine never made much sense. Putting significant naval forces near Venezuela to support a military operation to capture and extract its national leader does.

Q. Is there a clear motivation behind the intervention in Venezuela?

A. Is the intervention in Venezuela about drugs, or about democracy, or about oil? Arresting one Latin American drug-dealing head of state after  confuses the message on drugs.

Working with Maduro’s vice president instead of the opposition leaders who won the recent Venezuelan election confuses the message on democracy. Constant comments about oil confuse everything.

Media Contacts

Bryan McKenzie

Assistant Editor, UVA Today Office of University Communications