So, I've had a Washington Post subscription for years (probably a decade at this point, but I don't remember when I got it.) It's my hometown newspaper, it's got good investigative journalists, and for most of that time, it had a solid left-of-center, grounded-in-reality liberal streak, which appealed to me.
Some of their columnists were noticeably conservative, and that's fine. I want to understand the counterarguments to my own position, and although I have to ration how much I deal with those guys, they do serve to keep me tethered to facts and predictions which don't match my own predilections. When Bezos took over and barred WaPo from endorsing Harris for President, many of the opinion columnists quit in protest and went to found the Contrarian instead.
WaPo's Editorial Board celebrated yesterday's attack on Venezuela with no apparent thought for "What comes next?" or "What will the domestic legal & political consequences be?" Their sole metric seemed to be that by Trump announcing the US would be extracting Venezuelan oil, it's a boon for US business. Like many of the people who commented on that article, I was incensed and considered dropping my subscription. "Well", I thought, "let me wait a day and see if the obvious pushback makes the Editorial Board publish something more moderate / nuanced tomorrow."
Later, I came across one of my friends talking with one of _her_ friends on Facebook about whether this was a good thing or not. The friend-of-a-friend thought it was, but seemed focused on "Maduro's a bad guy." The conversation was in a language I don't speak, and Google translate only goes so far, so I didn't read the entire back-and-forth, or join in directly, but I think focusing on Maduro is a bad idea:
The Trump Administration's reasons for involvement in Venezuela have shifted numerous times and never been particularly good: At first they claimed they were stopping the flow of drugs into the US, but the drugs that come through Venezuela don't match the largest concerns for US law enforcement, the boats that were destroyed didn't have the capability of reaching the US coast, and the Administration never presented evidence that the people killed or boats destroyed were even involved in the drug trade. If they had captured the boats, those problems could have been mitigated by the collection of evidence. Trump pardoned a Honduran drug cartel leader as well, so "a bribe for Trump" is likely more important to US Caribbean policy than "the war on drugs."
There were some complaints that Maduro had precipitated a self-coup, staying in power when the voters told him to get lost. Sometimes the Trump Administration cites that as justification for disliking him, but this ignores Trump's well-documented admiration of Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Benjamin Netanyahu, Xi Jinping, and other leaders who've stretched the boundaries of law & convention to maintain dictatorial power. It also ignores Trump's own attempt at a self-coup, and by his supporters' apparent plans to repeat & maintain such actions. Given Trump's own record with the law & US Constitution, we must discount any justification that relies on him deposing Maduro for idealistic reasons like "rule of law" and "promoting democracy."
Venezuela does have significant oil & mineral wealth, which Trump is citing as a benefit of the US taking over the country. This, then, is what I expect to be his real motive. He's probably also looking to burnish his image as a "strong leader" to distract from his domestic failures. However, I don't think this will look like a success for very long. This Administration's disdain for consulting with Congress and outside experts make it exceptionally bad at holding to a coherent plan. Any serious proposal to recoup US "losses" after Venezuela nationalized its oil sector will involve years-long commitments, large numbers of US troops, and a combination of consistency & subtlety far in excess of what this Administration has done thus far.
And this brings us back to the WaPo editorials. These are some of the more conservative voices they have in-house (or maybe all that's left after the Bezos-inspired exodus):
Max Boot points out that this could easily turn into a debacle like post-Hussein Iraq. Megan McArdle points out that the economics of oil extraction & refining are unlikely to be profitable for years, and that the US will instead be obligated to spend lots of time and money investing in Venezuelan infrastructure before the country can be a stable producer again. George Will points out that the raid was likely illegal under US law, and a likely disaster for international relations. The original WaPo article appears to have been edited as well to soften its praise for Trump’s unilateral actions with some half-hearted consideration of the likely consequences. So at least there are still a few sane people left at WaPo...
And, if you'd rather not get your news from those who endorse plutocratic oligarchy, editorials from other sources are condemning the attack for all the above reasons. See, for example, Tim Dickinson at the Contrarian. Or this statement by Common Cause. Or this one by Just Security.