Every nation is Biblically justified to defend its borders from unlawful intrusion and invasion, to protect its valid national interests, and to provide good neighbor support to other nations (especially surrounding ones), but this should be distinguished from empire building. Scripture routinely treats empire building in a negative light, with Babel/Babylon standing as the preeminent example, compared with divinely designed Israel. Thus we read how God would favor Israel in its national defense and proper protection of its national interests: "When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." (Deuteronomy 20:1) We also read how Abraham was commended for coming to the aid of Lot and other friendly nations: "when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people. And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand." (Genesis 14)
IF there had been Congressional debate about war (which really should have happened first for US constitutional reasons) with Venezuela and the US helping Venezuelans return to what they had before Chavez and Maduro, I would have been on the side supporting the effort. Venezuela has done much against the USA to justify US war against Venezuelan leaders (drug trafficking, release of prisoners to go to the USA, etc.). Chavez expropriated US oil infrastructure without compensation, which the USA should not let stand. It hurt not only the USA; it also hurt the Venezuelan people, as they enjoyed diminishing oil revenues. Venezuela is nearby the USA, and we need to make sure we do not have Russia/China-controlled agent countries near us. It is naïve to think Maduro held power apart from Russia/China-control; he essentially held power by coup, since he stayed in power despite effectively losing the recent election. Under these circumstances there is reasonable chance the USA could both help itself and Venezuelans in war with the Maduro regime.
The war with the Maduro regime of Venezuela is unlike many US military adventures in the Middle East and Africa and beyond, generally characterized by empire building and "policeman of the world". US overthrow of regimes have been especially notorious: overthrow of Gaddafi of Libya, overthrow of Assad of Syria, overthrow of Hussein of Iraq, overthrow of Mossedegh of Iran, etc. Involvement in various civil wars have also generally been fiascos of over-extended empire, such as Lebanon in the early 1980s and Somalia in the early 1990s. Even the Ukraine War has many characteristics of a civil war which the USA should seek to avoid: the Russian-speaking sections in the east and Crimea versus the Ukrainian-speaking west.
The leap from justified war to unjustified empire was presciently warned about by Antifederalists in their debate with Federalists: Antifederalists presciently warned that the Federal Constitution lacked the limits on centralized empire. "A consolidated empire would simply attract enemies, keeping its citizens on a permanent war footing." Antifederalists bewailed the long-term consequences of abandonment of the Articles of Confederation for more centralized power under the Federal Constitution. "The Antifederalists...looked forward to the expansion of the American people across the Continent, but they abhorred the notion that they could all be governed under a single regime instead of a loose confederation. Empires were better left to decadent Europe. War and glory, wrote "Brutus" in response to Hamilton's pleas for a more energetic government, should not be the final ends of government; Americans ought instead "to furnish the world with an example of a great people, who in their civil institutions hold chiefly in view the attainment of virtue, and happiness among ourselves. Let the monarchs in Europe share among them the glory of depopulating countries, and butchering thousands of their innocent citizens."8' If America were to be as a city upon a hill, the Antifederalists seemed to say, then let it be a city renowned for liberty and virtue rather than might and extent."
Empires inevitably attract enemies, and the debt burden of empire, along with those enemies, eventually bring every empire down. Yes, we need self-defense, but we do not need empire.