Why does the USA think invading a country will lead to stability?

Why does the USA think invading a country will lead to stability?

Gandhi would say this was violence masquerading as order.

He would reject the logic at its root. For Gandhi, you cannot kidnap your way to legitimacy. Even if the leader is corrupt, brutal, or criminal, the act of violently removing him by an external force does not restore justice — it replaces one domination with another. Peace that begins with coercion is already poisoned.

He would emphasize means over outcomes. He was adamant that the method used shapes the world that follows. If the method is shock, fear, military force, and humiliation, then the result will be a society structured around those same forces. You don’t get reconciliation, dignity, or self-rule from that — you get silence enforced by power.

He would argue this robs the people of Venezuela of moral agency. Even if many Venezuelans despise Maduro, Gandhi believed liberation must be owned by the oppressed. When an outside power decides the moment, the method, and the result, it turns a population into spectators rather than authors of their own future. To Gandhi, that is not freedom — it is dependency.

He would warn about humiliation and memory. Gandhi understood something many strategists ignore: nations remember. Public capture, removal, and spectacle do not end conflict; they store it. Humiliation metastasizes into resentment, nationalism, and future violence. Gandhi would say this guarantees instability long after the operation is declared “successful.”

He would dismiss the justification of “necessary force.” He believed violence is often chosen not because it is unavoidable, but because it is faster and feels decisive. Nonviolence, by contrast, is slow, exhausting, and demands discipline — which is precisely why states abandon it. In Gandhi’s view, choosing violence reveals moral impatience, not moral clarity.

Because you cannot create peace by doing the very thing that destroys it.

He wouldn’t defend Maduro.
He wouldn’t defend Trump.
He wouldn’t defend geopolitics.

I defend moral coherence, even when it’s inconvenient, even when it looks ineffective, even when the world laughs at it. 

I know violence may “work.”

But if it works, it works by teaching the world that violence is acceptable and that lesson never stays contained.