Key Points and Summary: American Forces in Potential Venezuela Combat Deserve Broad Support
-The piece argues that if the United States escalates toward conflict with Venezuela, the focus should shift from partisan fights over President Trump’s motives to protecting U.S. troops who may be sent into harm’s way.
The world’s largest aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) steams in the Adriatic Sea, June 23, 2023. Gerald R. Ford is the U.S. Navy’s newest and most advanced aircraft carrier, representing a generational leap in the U.S. Navy’s capacity to project power on a global scale. The Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group is on a scheduled deployment in the U.S. Naval Forces Europe area of operations, employed by U.S. Sixth Fleet to defend U.S., allied, and partner interests. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jackson Adkins)
-Fentanyl deaths are an act of war, comparable in scale to historic attacks that drew America into major conflicts.
-The author warns that endless conspiracy theories and domestic delegitimization of the mission embolden adversaries and endanger servicemembers, echoing Vietnam and Iraq.
-The time to litigate motives and strategy, he contends, is after the guns fall silent—not while Americans are fighting and dying.
Venezuela, Fentanyl and Trump: The High Price of Partisan War Games
President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth appear to be inching closer to military action against Venezuela.
The Pentagon has already repeatedly attacked suspected drug smuggling boats, much to the consternation of both the president’s political opponents and those who, on principle, interpret the constitution and law to prohibit such military action against activities the United States has long considered criminal.
Questions about the casus belli are best left to officials within the Executive Branch, rather than to unelected lawyers making decisions based solely on precedent.
The White House is right to consider drug smuggling and the fentanyl crisis as acts of war by a hostile state or entity upon the United States or Americans. Consider: The sinking of the RMS Lusitania led to the deaths of 128 American citizens and pushed the United States onto a trajectory that would culminate in U.S. involvement in World War I. Just over 2,400 Americans died in the surprise Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor that led President Franklin D. Roosevelt to declare war on Japan the next day. Just under 3,000 people died in the September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington that led George W. Bush to send U.S. forces into Afghanistan and, more controversially, Iraq. Between 2021 and early 2024, more than a quarter of a million Americans have died of fentanyl overdoses.
The scale alone, larger than many genocides, and the involvement of foreign powers, not only makes President Donald Trump right to focus on the threat but also raises questions about why his predecessors have preferred to engage the U.S. military in “Responsibility to Protect” missions when cartels were killing thousands of Americans.
Nor are lawyers even correct when they say there is no precedent for tackling cartels militarily. The 19th-century Opium Wars saw the British attack China to force it to purchase Indian opium. In this analogy, the United States would be reprising China’s role, seeking to defend its sovereignty and the health and welfare of its citizens. Beijing would be hypocritical to condemn the United States for doing what Chinese authorities lionize as their own just and great resistance to an outside evil.
The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81) sails alongside the world’s largest aircraft carrier the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), Sep. 24, 2025. Winston S. Churchill, as part of Carrier Strike Group 12, is on a scheduled deployment in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operation to support the warfighting effectiveness, lethality and readiness of U.S. Naval Forces, Europe-Africa, and defend U.S. Allied and partner interest in the region. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Hector Rodriguez)
Of course, within Washington, political naysaying has always been present: Republicans and even many Democrats criticized President Harry S. Truman’s involvement in the Korean War. During his televised debates with Republican Vice President Richard Nixon, Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy sought to paint Nixon as soft on communism and national security. Republicans opposed the Vietnam intervention when Democrats led it, but then criticized Democratic counterculture when Nixon was finally at the helm.
The pattern has continued through Ronald Reagan’s invasion of Grenada, George H.W. Bush’s push into Panama, and Bill Clinton’s interventions in the Balkans. With the growth of social media, the conspiracies surrounding the decision to resort to military action, let alone go to war, reached a fever pitch. Pundits, both mainstream and in new media, questioned the rationale.
As cynical politicians sought to anchor their policy to shifting public opinion—Senator John Kerry’s infamous ‘I was with it before I was against it’ quip to explain his 2003 Iraq war vote being the most famous example—delegitimizing the rationale for war became political warfare.
Such political warfare leads to conspiracy theories, which then run amok. Rather than acknowledge the sincerity of George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney trying to address an amorphous terror threat in the wake of the intelligence failure behind the 9/11 terror attack, conspiracy theorists insisted the war was an inside job, a pretext to trade “blood for oil” or inflate the stock of Cheney’s former company, Halliburton. The idea that politicians use war to distract from domestic foibles is a constant theme that even got Hollywood treatment in the 1997 Dustin Hoffman/Robert De Niro film “Wag the Dog.”
Even with a quarter million Americans dead, many politicians and pundits still suggest that the motivation of Trump’s belligerence toward Venezuela and perhaps even Mexico, rests in a desire to shift headlines away from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
It is impossible to convince conspiracy theorists that 9/11 was not an inside job, that the moon landing was not faked, and that the Earth is indeed a globe. So there will always be some who, ignorant of the way sausage is made within the policy community, believe it is easy to involve thousands of people in a grand conspiracy.
The Real Challenge
What is at stake, however, is not simply showing oneself to be foolish but rather the well-being of U.S. forces who may go into harm’s way.
Suppose pundits and the press blindly embrace the theory that Trump seeks war in Venezuela to distract from his latest scandal. In that case, they are not only ignoring the fact that Trump does not care about scandals but also legitimizing the propaganda of those fighting the United States.
During the Cold War, there were communists, anti-communists, and anti-anti-communists who cared less about the tens of millions dead at the hands of the Soviet Union or Mao Zedong’s China and instead focused on undercutting those who criticized communism.
Today, there are drug cartels, those who are anti-cartel, and those who would give the cartels a free pass so long as they could land a blow on Trump’s political machine.
Not only is this pattern demoralizing for ordinary servicemen—think Vietnam and to a lesser extent Iraq—but it can cost American lives as it pumps up insurgents and terrorists who cite the New York Times, BBC, or, in a different context, Trump’s 2016 claim that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton created the Islamic State.
The decision to go to war should not be a partisan exercise. America wins wars only when the American people support the cause and when American politicians adhere to their principles. Elections matter, and many elected officials may not like that Trump is the commander-in-chief.
Still, if war comes to Venezuela, all politicians should recognize that attacking motives and litigating the decision may score political points in the short term, but only at the expense of American lives in the long term.
What Happens Next?
As with the Greatest Generation, when war comes, the primary question should be how to win it.
The time to address questions and conspiracies should come only after the guns fall silent and an adversary’s white flag of surrender flies.
About the Author: Dr. Michael Rubin
Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum. The opinions and views expressed are his own. A former Pentagon official, Dr. Rubin has lived in post-revolution Iran, Yemen, and both pre- and postwar Iraq. He also spent time with the Taliban before 9/11. For more than a decade, he taught classes at sea on the Horn of Africa and the Middle East, covering conflicts, culture, and terrorism to deployed US Navy and Marine units. The views expressed are the author’s own.
More Military
Could America Have Lost the Revolutionary War?
The Marines Don’t Have Tanks Anymore
The Essex-Class Aircraft Carriers Have An Embarrassing Message for the U.S. Navy
‘New’ Mach 4 MiG-41 6th Generation Stealth Fighter Has Warning for U.S. Air Force
Boeing’s F-47 NGAD 6th Generation Stealth Fighter Is No ‘Mission Impossible’
Krystal cane
November 18, 2025 at 10:47 am
No they don’t
Jim
November 18, 2025 at 1:06 pm
The time for public discussion, debate, and argument about the merits of military action against Venezuela is before an act of aggression happens.
War is not the prerogative of the President alone.
The American People’s representatives in Congress as stated in the United States Constitution are who have the power to declare war then the President executes on Congress’s Declaration of War.
If you don’t want second guesses or condemnations while American G. I.’s are in harms way then gain a consensus from the People’s representatives before the war starts. This is the democratic way our Constitutional system is supposed to work.
Of course, Americans don’t want to see service members injured or killed and want the best for them and don’t appreciate statements which suggest anything other than support for our service members while fighting on America’s behalf.
But in this case the alleged pretext for going to war is thin, much less than the “weapons of mass destruction” lie used to justify the failed Iraq War which led to thousands of soldiers’ lives lost, trillions of Dollars down the drain, and geopolitical failure, as Iranian influence gained a big foothold in Iraq.
We’ve seen little beyond the videos of exploding outboard motor boats, with no evidence provided, and given prior pretexts or casus belli have often turned out to be false, see Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Americans have every right to question the motivations for the military invasion before it happens.
Little if any fentanyl comes from Venezuela, mostly it comes overland via Mexico and it’s manufactured in Mexico from Chinese precursors. Neither is cocaine (Columbia) in large amounts coming from Venezuela, same for heroin (Asia).
It’s an obvious false pretext, but the author wants Americans to “just go along with it.”
No, I don’t want American soldiers to die for a false pretext, when the real reason is something else.
Namely, oil is the reason, plus Trump wants to best Maduro in a personal mano a mano contest, as Trump failed to get regime change in his first term.
When war starts because of a lie Americans have every democratic right to object especially when their representatives were never asked to debate the merits of said war and strident voices want to stifle debate before the war starts and then turn around and criticize people for objecting when the war doesn’t go right.
This is how we get into forever wars and create deep divisions in our body politic.
The American People are sick of it.
My suspicion is that Trump has built up military forces to gain leverage for an oil & mineral deal on very favorable terms. I hope that’s right and we avoid military action which likely would lead to military failure (not enough military assets in the region) and political disaster for Trump and Republicans in the mid-terms.
We’ve also seen that too many times.