The escalating tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela, increased by the American dispatch of guided-missile destroyers toward Venezuelan waters and Caracas’s own mobilization of warships and militias, have revived the memory of the U.S.’s invasion of Panama.
A closer examination of both crises reveals similar patterns in the US’s foreign policy. For instance, in the months leading to the US invasion of Panama, American forces conducted frequent training exercises near Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF) units. These exercises were a “deliberate demonstration of force,” and were designed to familiarize troops with their targets and desensitize the enemy to rapid troop movements, which allowed the Americans to preserve the element of surprise during the invasion.
Today, the deployment of the destroyers near the Venezuelan coasts serves a double purpose, as, besides carrying out counter-narcotics operations, their positioning near the coasts of Venezuela carries a message of military capability, as US officials have noted their Tomahawk missiles have the range to strike any target within Venezuela.
Unlike Venezuela’s beligerent Nicolas Maduro, Panama’s Manuel Noriega transformed from a US asset to a liability
Before becoming the target of a full-scale US invasion, Manuel Noriega was a valuable American asset during the Cold War. He rose through the ranks of the Panamanian military and became a crucial operative for the CIA from the 1960s until the 1980s. His anti-communist stance was closely aligned with Washington’s position during the Cold War, and for years, his heavily documented criminal activities, such as drug trafficking and money laundering, were overlooked by the U.S.
While in power, Noriega was praised by Washington, and at his peak, he received close to USD$200,000 annually from the CIA, whilst double-crossing the DEA by facilitating the Medellin Cartel’s money laundering operations through the Panamanian banking system. In 1987, the Reagan administration decided to remove Noriega from office, as they initiated a campaign depicting him as a narco-terrorist with ties to Colombian drug cartels.
USMC LAV-25 providing support during Operation Just Cause. pic.twitter.com/wXt21hBekC
— HellHeight (@joeblillib4090) May 30, 2025
This campaign, as well as a 1988 federal drug indictment, had the opposite effect, as Noriega hardened his grip on power in Panama. Economic sanctions also had the opposite effect, impacting the Panamanians rather than Noriega.
Operation Just Cause had months of preparation
The US invasion of Panama had been planned for months, but the death of a U.S. Marine at a PDF roadblock just days before the operation began caused tensions between the U.S. and Panama to reach their boiling point. The tragic death of the American Marine helped launch and justify an operation that had been planned for months of anticipation. On the morning of December 20, 1989, President Bush addressed the nation and articulated the four official objectives for Operation Just Cause.
The first objective was to safeguard the lives of U.S. citizens. At the time of the invasion, there were 35,000 Americans in Panama. The second objective was to defend democracy and human rights, with the Bush administration claiming the invasion was meant to protect the democratically elected government of Guillermo Endara, which Noriega had annulled. The third objective of Operation Just Cause was to fight drug trafficking by apprehending Noriega and taking him to the U.S. to stand trial on drug charges. Finally, the fourth official objective of the invasion was to protect the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaties.
US Army during Operation Just Cause, 1989 pic.twitter.com/XnIiR4zY0d
— ᴅᴇᴡ (@Remnantize) August 23, 2023
Operation Just Cause was executed swiftly and effectively. The United States deployed 27,684 troops against a Panamanian army that was significantly smaller at an estimated 16,000 troops, in what became the country’s first post-Cold War invasion. Notably, this was also the first time the AH-64 Apache helicopter and the F-117A Nighthawk stealth bomber were deployed by the U.S. Key military objectives were quickly achieved, as the US destroyed the PDF’s headquarters at La Comandancia.
The number of casualties during the invasion of Panama remains a topic of contention
The human toll of the US invasion of Panama remains a point of deep contention. The assault on La Comandancia caused fires that effectively destroyed the nearby El Chorrillo neighborhood in Panama City, leaving thousands homeless. A 1991 report from Human Rights Watch concluded that the high number of civilian casualties may have been a violation of the “rule of proportionality.” The report noted that civilian deaths were at least four-and-a-half times higher than Panamanian military casualties and twelve or thirteen times higher than US troop casualties.
The international community’s response to the Panama invasion was a complex mix of condemnation and acceptance. The U.S. legally justified the invasion on three pillars: self-defense, its right to protect the Panama Canal, and by claiming it acted with the consent of the “legitimate” Panamanian government led by Guillermo Endara. In contrast, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that determined the invasion was a “flagrant violation of international law”.
Crucially, however, the U.S. State Department reported that representatives from six other Latin American countries viewed Panama as a “special case”, as they believed the US had exhausted all other means to remove Noriega from power.
Similarities and differences between the US invasion of Panama and the crisis with Venezuela
From a foreign policy perspective, there are some clear similarities between how the U.S. handled the 1989 invasion of Panama and the ongoing crisis with Venezuela. In Panama, a US federal grand jury indicted Noriega on drug-related charges. Today, the U.S. has offered a $50 million bounty for the arrest of Nicolas Maduro on similar charges.
However, the longevity of the crisis between the U.S. and Venezuela has resulted in some striking similarities to the crisis with Panama. For instance, despite the US using economic sanctions and visa restrictions against Noriega, the sanctions imposed on Venezuela and its leadership are far more comprehensive. Some of these include seizing almost USD$700 million worth of property owned by Nicolas Maduro in Florida.
The repercussions of a U.S. incursion in Venezuela could also be far greater than the ones they faced in Panama. The Panamanian Defense Forces were a small military, whilst the current Venezuelan army is not only bigger, but more modern and is backed by Russian technology, as well as millions of mobilized civilian militia members.
Despite this, however, the most significant difference between the two crises is the geopolitical context. In 1989, the U.S. was the sole hegemonic power, as the crisis with Panama took place during the decline of the Soviet Union, and therefore, there was no great power to rival the US’s actions in Central America. Today, the world is far more interdependent, with Russia, China and Iran being key players in Venezuela providing economic, military, and diplomatic support.