OPINION:
The U.S. military’s sinking of drug transport boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean has dragged the issue of narco-terrorism onto the battlefield of partisan politics. As with virtually every other policy pronouncement of President Trump, the angry, anti-Trump resistance has responded with the full-throated opposition so characteristic of “progressive” Washington officialdom. Where common sense holds sway, though, support for a presidential initiative meant to save innocent American lives is not only welcomed but also expected.
During the past quarter-century, annual U.S. drug overdose deaths have risen nearly a hundredfold, peaking at about 114,000 in 2023, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most of the fatalities have been attributed to abuse of fentanyl, the synthetic opioid shipped primarily from China and included in contraband smuggled in from Central and South America.
All told, hundreds of thousands of Americans lie in graves, mourned by millions of their bereaved family members, owing to the modern-day scourge of chemical addiction. As Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana put it recently on Fox News Digital, “There are more American lives lost because of illegal drugs than in the last seven years than World War I, World War II and Vietnam combined.”
It should go without saying that as the commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces, a president who fails to halt the killing of his citizens by the hundreds of thousands would be in contravention of his constitutionally mandated duties. However, Democrats on Capitol Hill are standing shoulder to shoulder in opposition to Mr. Trump’s bold anti-drug operations, citing the absence of congressional authorization.
Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, for one, has drawn a distinction between the president’s current hemispheric anti-drug operations and the globe-spanning war on terrorism that Congress endorsed during the post-9/11 era. “So, the drone strike on a boat — it’s a similar use of a kinetic activity, but it’s not congressionally authorized,” he was quoted to say in this publication.
Language that cheers for the unleashing of U.S. military might to defend national interests halfway around the world while objecting to efforts to prevent narco-terrorism from killing Americans at home is the sort of legislative argle-bargle that has earned Congress a 23% approval in the most recent Real Clear Politics poll.
If there is a silver lining to the dark cloud of drug death, it is that lethal overdoses crested in 2023 and declined 27% last year. Were the fatalities to follow the same downward trajectory annually, the nation, in theory, would be freed from the tragic impact of needless death — perhaps within a decade — and with a cost of “only” an additional couple of hundred thousand victims. Would Americans find that acceptable? Hardly.
That is why the president’s missile strike operation makes sense. As of this writing, at least 87 suspected traffickers have been sent to the bottom of the sea. With each U.S.-bound cargo craft the U.S. terminates, according to the president, “We save 25,000 American lives.”
The Associated Press wing of the Trump fact-check industry, among others, has seized on the president’s pronouncement, excoriating him for defending his actions with numbers that “don’t add up.” Stipulating the obvious presence of exaggeration in politics, reason would nevertheless counter that a policy that saves even a fraction of those lives — say, 2,500, or even 25 — is still a worthy endeavor. Would the president’s nitpicking critics disagree?
To be sure, the president and his advocates have an obligation to reinforce public support for their lifesaving campaign with a clear rationale. Surprisingly, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that a slight 51% majority of respondents opposed military operations to kill alleged drug traffickers, while only 29% said they supported the strikes. After enduring four years of Joseph R. Biden’s drug-death-spawning, open-borders policies, perhaps Americans have forgotten they don’t have to live at the mercy of narco-terrorism.
In contrast, an Associated Press/GfK poll in 2015 found that 6 in 10 respondents supported the use of drone strikes when Barack Obama was killing terrorists, including Americans, overseas.
Justice Robert H. Jackson’s enduring declaration that “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” should be self-evident where common sense abounds. It certainly is obvious to President Trump. Opposition to the president’s killing of narco-terrorists can only leave Americans wondering whether his critics would prefer the perpetuation of drug overdose deaths.
• Frank Perley is a former senior editor and editorial writer for Opinion at The Washington Times.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.