Mary Anastasia O’Grady doesn’t call for a U.S. attack on Venezuela, but she proposes something else that is just as reckless and dangerous:

Outside the country, small groups of Venezuelan fighters can be trained, organized and equipped by the allies to begin conducting strikes with the goal of securing a foothold from which operations can be expanded.

The U.S. has successfully led this type of unconventional warfare for decades. And it could be carried out consistent with the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance—a k a the Rio Treaty—which obliges signatories to assist their neighbors when there is a threat by a foreign power.

Americans may ask why the U.S. should get involved in Venezuela. But this isn’t about Venezuela per se. This is about an offensive in the Western Hemisphere by adversaries of the West.

O’Grady’s argument is very similar to the calls we began hearing in 2012 to “arm the rebels” in Syria, and it is driven by the same mistaken belief that the U.S. has to interfere in another country’s internal crisis in order to oppose the influence of other major powers. The so-called “offensive” that O’Grady refers to isn’t a good reason for the U.S. to arm and train insurgents to stoke a civil war in Venezuela. No doubt this proposal is designed to appeal to Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra infamy and other horrors, and that is exactly why it must never become U.S. policy.

The U.S. has an awful track record of fueling such wars in Latin America, and the result was years of armed conflict, tens of thousands killed, and numerous atrocities committed against the civilian population. There is no reason to think that fueling civil war in Venezuela would have a different or better outcome. A Venezuelan civil war might be even bloodier than we imagine now, and there is no guarantee that U.S.-backed insurgents would prevail. Like the war in Syria, it could prove to be a slow, grinding bloodbath that destroys the country without forcing the current regime from power. Even if this policy “worked” as intended and overthrew the government, it would throw Venezuela into even deeper chaos and instability for many more years. Our government shouldn’t be willing to sacrifice the lives of countless Venezuelans to score points in an imaginary duel with Russia, Cuba, or anyone else.

Jon Lee Anderson reported on the current state of affairs in Venezuela in a very good article for The New Yorker, and one of the people he spoke to was the leader of a pro-Maduro colectivo named Roberto Longa. Anderson writes:

He said, “Our love is for Chávez, and we are never going to stop loving him for all of our lives.” In his view, Maduro was carrying on Chávez’s work, and his explanations for the real cause of the country’s woes were inarguable. The blackout had been brought about by American sabotage; the widespread poverty and hunger resulted from an “economic war” led by the U.S. “The gringos have said, ‘We’re going to asphyxiate you,’ and we can see it happening,” he said. If the Americans forced Maduro from power, he vowed to take up arms. “We’ll radicalize the revolution,” he said. “We’ll initiate a prolonged popular war, an insurrection, and then move against the rancid oligarchy, and take over the oil industry, and so on.”

Encouraging an insurgency against Maduro will empower men like this, and the Venezuelan people would be the ones to pay the price for our government’s support for violent rebellion. Once the U.S. opens the door to backing an armed rebellion in Venezuela, it will have to choose between escalating to prevent the rebels’ defeat or hanging them out to dry when things go wrong. The U.S. should never put itself in a position where it is goading people to get themselves killed, and it shouldn’t be putting itself on the hook for rescuing a failing insurgency.

Negotiations between the two camps is the only way forward that makes the slightest bit of sense. Anderson spoke to a leading Venezuelan pollster, who said this:

Luis Vicente León, Venezuela’s most prominent political pollster, told me, “The real uncertainty is what the military is going to do.” It had been a mistake to try to force the Army to split with Maduro, he said. “The military is the government, and they want to know how they stand after he goes.” He added that a successful coup would not necessarily lead to a less brutal government: “What happens if the military moves against Maduro but remains at odds with the opposition? They may become more powerful and repressive. Then you become a real dictatorship.” The only realistic solution, León believed, was to somehow work out a consensus. “We are condemned to negotiate with the bad guys,” he said. “Otherwise, this country will soon become ungovernable.”

The very last thing that the Venezuelan opposition needs is to be turned into a U.S.-backed armed rebel group. That would not only give Maduro and his allies the perfect foil to defend their continued hold on power, but it would also weaken the opposition’s international political support while making them increasingly dependent on the U.S. for their success. Militarizing the crisis would be a disaster for them and for the people of Venezuela, and Congress must strenuously oppose any attempt to use U.S. funds and personnel to arm and train an insurgency in Venezuela.