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

Eight months ago, U.S. aircraft from 20 bases carried out a special operations mission in Caracas, seizing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from a fortified residence. The assault resulted in the deaths of multiple Venezuelan and Cuban personnel. However, Congress never granted authorization for this operation. On Monday, Americans discovered the outcome of this covert action: a century-long agreement granting the U.S. rights to 17 oil fields holding an estimated 65 billion barrels of oil, along with a 35% Pentagon ownership stake in a newly established company.

The State Department has also pledged to purchase one-fifth of the production at cost. Two truths can coexist: the means by which this deal was secured should cause alarm among those who value constitutional governance and the boundaries of executive power in initiating military action. Simultaneously, the strategic and economic advantages for the United States could be significant.

President [redacted] initiated military intervention against the head of a foreign regime without congressional approval. He subsequently announced that the U.S. would manage Venezuela until a Washington-approved transition would occur. Maduro might have been a dictator, and the narcoterrorism implications are alarming.