President Trump recently decided that enough is enough when it comes to the drug cartels flooding our streets with fentanyl, cocaine, and all manner of misery. He’s officially labeled these cartels as “unlawful combatants,” a fancy legal way of saying, “We’re treating them like terrorists, not just criminals.”

Under this new policy, the U.S. military has begun armed strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean, especially off the coast of Venezuela. These operations have reportedly taken out several vessels and over twenty suspected traffickers so far. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called them “narco-terrorists,” and the Pentagon seems to be backing this new, tougher stance with gusto.

Of course, the move hasn’t gone unnoticed. Congress is split. Supporters are saying, “Finally, we’re doing something!” while critics are clutching their constitutional pearls, warning that this could turn into a full-blown foreign quagmire.

Why Some Folks Say It’s About Time We Hit Back

Let’s start with the folks cheering from the bleachers. Their argument goes something like this: the cartels aren’t just gangsters anymore; they’re paramilitary organizations. They use military-grade weapons, control territory, and have killed more people than some actual countries at war. So why on earth would we treat them like common criminals when they’re waging a shadow war against us?

Proponents point out that traditional law enforcement approaches have failed miserably. Decades of DEA raids and border seizures haven’t made a dent. The drugs keep coming, the overdoses keep rising, and the cartels keep counting their billions. By treating them as combatants, the U.S. can finally hit their infrastructure, not just their couriers.

They also argue this approach sends a message: if you pump poison into American communities, Uncle Sam might just send a missile your way. Harsh? Sure. But deterrence sometimes needs teeth, not talk.

There’s also the moral argument, one that resonates with many conservatives. Fentanyl isn’t just killing people; it’s destroying families and communities. Scripture doesn’t tell us to sit on our hands while evil spreads. As Romans 13:4 says of governing authorities, “For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain.” The sword, in this case, happens to be a Navy destroyer.

And, honestly, there’s something refreshingly unapologetic about it. After years of watching bureaucrats “express concern” while American teenagers die from foreign-made fentanyl, a bit of righteous anger feels long overdue.

Why Some Folks Say We Might Be Going Too Far

Now for the other side of the coin. Critics say this “armed conflict” talk could be a constitutional hornet’s nest. The president has basically declared a military engagement without explicit congressional approval, using executive war powers. Sound familiar? Yeah, we’ve been down that road before, and it usually leads to mission creep and endless debate about legality.

Then there’s the evidence problem. The administration hasn’t exactly rolled out the receipts on what these boats were carrying. Some lawmakers are grumbling that Congress hasn’t seen hard proof that the people killed were actually smugglers. If we’re going to start launching missiles at boats, it would be nice to know for sure they weren’t full of fishermen or refugees.

Internationally, this move has raised eyebrows too. Venezuela is furious, calling the strikes “acts of aggression,” and nearby Caribbean nations are worried that their own citizens might get caught in the crossfire. Even if the intent is noble, the optics are tricky, especially if innocent people end up as “collateral damage.”

And here’s the kicker: while it’s satisfying to see decisive action, wars on abstract concepts tend to age poorly. We’ve had a “War on Drugs” since Nixon, and the drugs have been winning by a landslide. Some worry that this approach might militarize a problem that’s as much social and economic as it is criminal.

Lastly, there’s a concern that all this could distract from fixing our own borders, the one area where real control could be exercised without firing a shot. If the boats are still slipping through and the border’s still porous, sinking a few smugglers in the Caribbean might look more like a PR stunt than a lasting solution.

Where I Land on This

On one hand, it’s hard not to appreciate President Trump’s willingness to do what so many politicians refuse to: act decisively in defense of American lives. The cartels are a cancer, and it’s about time we treated them like one. His move reminds us that evil doesn’t back down when you “strongly condemn” it; it backs down when it’s outmatched and outgunned.

But let’s keep our feet on the ground. Even the best intentions need boundaries. The Founding Fathers didn’t craft the Constitution so that any president could unilaterally declare wars, even righteous ones, without checks and balances. And while using force against drug traffickers might sound satisfying, it’s not a substitute for real border security, addiction prevention, and cleaning up the corruption that lets these cartels thrive.

So, call it what it is: a bold, controversial, maybe slightly cowboy move that’s shaking up the status quo. It might not be perfect, but it’s a far cry better than the empty posturing we’ve been spoon-fed for decades. Just so long as we remember that wars are easy to start and hard to end.

Or, as Proverbs 21:31 puts it: “The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the Lord.”

We can prepare the ships and fire the missiles, but let’s pray we’re aiming at the right enemies.