Continuity and Change in U.S. Unilateral Military Intervention in Latin America: A Comparative Analysis of Grenada, Panama, and Venezuela
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study examines continuity and change in U.S. unilateral military intervention in Latin America through a comparative analysis of three cases: Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), and Venezuela (2026). Utilizing an integrated analytical framework combining military intervention determinants, securitization theory, and the judicialization frame, this article evaluates the cases across four dimensions: strategic, justificatory, operational, and outcome assessment. The analysis reveals that while the rhetoric of threat construction shifted from Cold War anti-communism to narco-terrorism and law-enforcement logic, the structural goal of maintaining U.S. hemispheric primacy and removing hostile regimes remained constant. Justificatory logic evolved from a single securitization frame through composite multi-frame structures to a tightly integrated securitization-judicialization form. Operational modalities likewise transitioned from large-scale joint invasions toward low-visibility special operations, while unilateralism advanced from implicit practice to explicit strategic doctrine. Although Grenada and Panama achieved their short-term tactical objectives, the ongoing nature of the Venezuela case precludes a definitive assessment of its long-term political, legal, and strategic consequences, despite achieving its immediate operational objective of leadership apprehension. The findings, therefore, suggest that U.S. unilateral military intervention has become tactically more sophisticated, particularly in its integration of securitization and law-enforcement rationales, but that such sophistication does not necessarily produce strategic stability, international legitimacy, or durable regional order.
Abstract
This study examines continuity and change in U.S. unilateral military intervention in Latin America through a comparative analysis of three cases: Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), and Venezuela (2026). Utilizing an integrated analytical framework combining military intervention determinants, securitization theory, and the judicialization frame, this article evaluates the cases across four dimensions: strategic, justificatory, operational, and outcome assessment. The analysis reveals that while the rhetoric of threat construction shifted from Cold War anti-communism to narco-terrorism and law-enforcement logic, the structural goal of maintaining U.S. hemispheric primacy and removing hostile regimes remained constant. Justificatory logic evolved from a single securitization frame through composite multi-frame structures to a tightly integrated securitization-judicialization form. Operational modalities likewise transitioned from large-scale joint invasions toward low-visibility special operations, while unilateralism advanced from implicit practice to explicit strategic doctrine. Although Grenada and Panama achieved their short-term tactical objectives, the ongoing nature of the Venezuela case precludes a definitive assessment of its long-term political, legal, and strategic consequences, despite achieving its immediate operational objective of leadership apprehension. The findings, therefore, suggest that U.S. unilateral military intervention has become tactically more sophisticated, particularly in its integration of securitization and law-enforcement rationales, but that such sophistication does not necessarily produce strategic stability, international legitimacy, or durable regional order.