I do think there's a difference. Unfortunately a very large number of Americans have cult-related beliefs about the supposed importance of Middle Eastern affairs. There was genuine "grassroot" support for involvement there; so there was at least a genuine element of the government doing what the American people wanted from it.
With Venezuela, I believe that only a tiny portion of Americans had a preexisting desire for military intervention. This is a case of the government driving democracy in reverse by telling people what to believe. It's a far worse breakdown of democracy than the Middle East wars.
* Deploy all necessary military assets, including the U.S. Navy, to impose a full naval embargo on the cartels, to ensure they cannot use our region’s waters to traffic illicit drugs to the U.S.
From that it seems that embargos of Venezuela, El Salvador and Mexico are on the table.
Trump wags the dog. He has to be vocal about it to get his supporters to agree with it. Otherwise they'd be asking why we're starting another approach foreign war.
Glassing is different than conquering. I know folks that straight up support just killing everyone and everything there once and for all. Or at least they think that will solve the problem.
I can confirm that nuke em all attitudes towards the middle east are prevalent in America. Nobody could say the American people themselves didn't have a hand in starting those wars.
