WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 (Xinhua) -- The lack of clarity surrounding the U.S. military buildup off the coast of Venezuela has thrown into doubt the real motives behind the move, with some observers warning of possible pitfalls ahead.

For the past few months, the U.S. military has deployed warships, bombers, troops and drones off the coast of the South American nation, and has destroyed over 20 boats from Venezuela.

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump said the buildup is aimed at curtailing the flow of drugs into the United States, but no specific evidence of drug smuggling is available.

LACK OF CLARITY

Many question why the United States is targeting Venezuela instead of other countries in the region for alleged drug trafficking, leading some to believe that the White House's argument is shaky.

"The drug trafficking argument seems exceptionally flimsy," Christopher Galdieri, a political science professor at Saint Anselm College in the northeastern state of New Hampshire, told Xinhua.

According to a CBS poll published on Nov. 23, a whopping 76 percent of Americans believe that the administration has not clearly explained the U.S. position on military action in Venezuela.

This lack of clarity has led some analysts, observers and media to the belief that the U.S. goal is to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

If the United States succeeds in ousting Maduro, the strategy around that goal -- and how to handle the aftermath -- remains unclear.

The White House has not given many details, while Trump has only provided the press with bits and pieces, often in the form of off-the-cuff remarks at press briefings.

Venezuelan Attorney General Tarek William Saab told the BBC in late October that there is "no doubt" that Trump is trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government.

Saab, a close ally of Maduro, said that Trump wants to turn his country into a U.S. "colony."

POSSIBLE PITFALLS

Some analysts believe that ousting Venezuela's current leadership would lead to unforeseen challenges and pitfalls.

"If it changes Venezuela's regime, the White House risks recreating the endless wars and quagmires of the Middle East, but this time in our own neighborhood," argued an article on libertarian think tank Cato Institute's website on Oct. 29.

"The size of the strike package suggests a campaign on the scale of President Barack Obama's Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya," the article said, referring to the operation in 2011.

"The outcome there was chaos, civil war and open-air slave markets," it added.

Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Michael O'Hanlon told Xinhua, "I fear it could indeed resemble Libya -- less bad but not good -- or Iraq -- very bad -- given the likely difficulty of stabilizing the place."

The U.S. invasion of Iraq led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, regional destabilization and the rise of terror groups such as the Islamic State.

A recent article published on the website of the Atlantic Council, a think tank, said that U.S. strikes could push Venezuela to retaliate.

Venezuela, a major oil producer, boasts some of the world's largest proven oil reserves. U.S. imports of Venezuelan crude have declined sharply over the past decade due to sanctions and political tensions.

Last month, Trump said all nations that harbor drug cartels are subject to attack, including neighboring Mexico and Colombia.

That statement raises another question: Is this now an official U.S. doctrine?

PUBLIC BACKLASH

There is good evidence that the U.S. public is against a war against Venezuela.

Only 13 percent of Americans believe Venezuela is a major threat to the United States, according to the CBS poll. Seventy percent of respondents said they were against a war with Venezuela.

However, among Trump's core supporters, or MAGA Republicans, 66 percent said they would favor military action in Venezuela.

A poll from Reuters and Ipsos released in mid-November also found that a majority of Americans believe the risks of U.S. military action in Venezuela outweigh the benefits, though Republicans were more supportive.

"If hostilities began and were two-sided -- and no one can know yet on either point -- this war would be very unpopular very early," Clay Ramsay, a researcher at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, told Xinhua. Enditem