Venezuela oil deal may be a win, but it shouldn't set a precedent

Eight months ago, American aircraft took off from 20 bases as a special operations team invaded Caracas, forcibly removing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from a secure building. The attack resulted in the deaths of numerous Venezuelan and Cuban personnel. However, Congress never granted authorization for this operation. On Monday, Americans discovered the outcome of this unexpected military intervention: a century-old contractual right to 17 oil fields, estimated to hold 65 billion barrels of oil, a 35% ownership stake in the newly formed company, and a State Department commitment to purchase one-fifth of the production at its production cost.

It's possible for both reactions to be accurate. The manner in which this agreement was secured should raise concerns among those who value constitutional governance and the boundaries of presidential military authority. Nevertheless, the strategic and economic advantages to the United States could also be considerable. President ordered military action against the leader of a foreign nation without congressional consent.

He subsequently declared that the U.S. would manage Venezuela until a government acceptable to Washington was established. Maduro may have been a dictator, and the narcoterrorism implications are significant.