Senators, the Military, and the Fight Against Narco-Terrorism
- Senior Democrats publicly questioned the legality of strikes on drug boats, creating confusion.
- Conservative leaders defended the president’s authority and the troops’ lawful orders.
- Media interviews amplified partisan attacks instead of clarifying legal precedent.
- Strong action against narco-trafficking is framed as necessary to protect American lives.
Senator Mark Kelly’s recent comments on ABC’s This Week crossed a line by implying legal jeopardy for service members carrying out orders to stop deadly drugs. Republicans see that as a direct attempt to undercut the chain of command and weaken frontline efforts against fentanyl and other contraband. This is not just political theater; it risks demoralizing troops doing a dangerous, necessary job.
Senator Kelly, in his comments, explicitly sought to intimidate junior military personnel, planting a seed of fear about their future legal standing for simply doing their duty to protect the American homeland. The ABC transcript reveals Kelly’s troubling statement: “Hey, we don’t want drugs in this country, especially fentanyl. But all these drugs, we — we should be working really hard to interdict them and prosecute the individuals that are smuggling drugs, not putting young service members at great, legal jeopardy.” That kind of rhetoric should alarm every American who wants a secure border and a disciplined military.
Martha Raddatz’s interview offered no meaningful pushback on those claims, allowing a narrative that questions lawful, targeted military actions. Smart, pointed questioning about legal precedent and mission rules would have cut through the fog. Instead, the segment amplified fear rather than providing clarity for service members and the public.
Senator Ruben Gallego escalated the partisan language by calling the strikes “murder” on NBC’s Meet the Press, further inflaming the debate and mischaracterizing operational realities. He said, “It’s very dangerous what he’s doing…to these men and women who have to make these calls for a president who has zero understanding about the responsibility someone has when it comes to having to make life and death decisions.” This type of accusation attacks both the military and the decision-making needed to keep Americans safe.
Senator Lindsey Graham offered a clear, experienced rebuttal rooted in military law and history on CBS’s Face the Nation, defending the legality and necessity of the strikes. He stated, “To our men and women in uniform, you’re not murdering anybody. You’re making America safer by going after a narco-terrorist. You’re following lawful orders.” That straight talk reassures the troops and reasserts the president’s responsibility to defend the nation.
Graham reminded viewers there is precedent for decisive action when the homeland is threatened and placed the current operations in that lineage of strong leadership. He declared, “When President Bush, 41, took Ortega (sic, Noriega) out in Panama, Reagan went into Grenada to deal with the Cuban influence from Grenada in our backyard, he has all the authority in the world. This is not murder. This is protecting America from being poisoned by narco-terrorists coming from Venezuela and Colombia.” That context matters when parsing legal and moral responsibility.
The bottom line is simple: we must protect Americans from fentanyl and narco-terrorism, and we should back troops carrying out lawful orders to do that. Senator Graham’s closing warning captures the new posture of decisive defense: “You got a commander-in-chief’s not going to put up with this crap. We’re not going to sit on the sidelines and watch boats full of drugs come to our country. We’re going to blow them up and kill the people that want to poison America, and we’re now going to expand operations, I think, to the land.” Voters who want a secure country should expect nothing less.
Leave a Comment