When you use the U.S. military to intervene in another country, it is a very
serious matter. It requires clear objectives, congressional engagement, and a
sober assessment of consequences.



<[link removed]>



John,



I spent 18 years in Congress, and every one of those years I served on the
U.S. House Armed Services Committee. Over that time, I learned something
fundamental about the use of American military power. When the United States
takes military action, it must be in the direct interest of the United States.
That standard matters not just for the moment, but for the long-term order of
the world.

That is why I have been troubled by recent events in Venezuela.

Let me be clear. Nicolás Maduro is a very bad guy. He ignored an election
that would have removed him from power and ruled as a brutal dictator.
Reasonable people can agree on that. But agreeing that someone is terrible does
not automatically justify direct U.S. military intervention. There are a lot of
very bad actors in this world who do a lot of bad things. The hard question is
deciding where and when American force is necessary to protect our national
security.

I do not believe that case has been clearly made here.

<[link removed]>

Some will inevitably compare this to the U.S. intervention in Panama against
Manuel Noriega, and while there are similarities, that episode itself sparked
serious debate about precedent, proportionality, and long-term consequences.

When you use the U.S. military to intervene in another country, it is a very
serious matter. It requires clear objectives, congressional engagement, and a
sober assessment of consequences. At a minimum, senior leaders in Congress, the
people who lead the armed services and defense appropriations committees,
should have been fully informed. The steady erosion of Congress’s role in
decisions of war and peace should concern all of us.

But my deeper concern goes beyond process. It goes to precedent.

We have heard the argument that Venezuela falls within our sphere of
influence. That is a dangerous way to think. Once we claim that powerful
countries can act militarily simply because another nation lies in their
neighborhood, we invite others to do the same.

Does China then say that Taiwan is within its sphere of influence? Does
Russia argue that this logic justifies its invasion of Ukraine, and perhaps
other countries as well? In fact, that is exactly the argument Vladimir Putin
has already made.

Even when an action appears successful in the short term, we have to ask what
it means for the long term. Does it embolden other powerful nations to take
matters into their own hands. Does it weaken the international rules that
govern the global order and help preserve peace.

Those rules exist for a reason. They are meant to restrain the strong, protect
the vulnerable, and prevent a world where might makes right. Undermining them,
even when intentions seem good, carries real risks.

Some argue that issues like drug trafficking justify military action. Drugs
flowing into the United States are a serious problem, no question. But we can
point to many countries where drugs originate or move through, including Mexico
and Colombia. The core question remains whether this rises to a direct and
immediate threat to our national security that requires military force. I do
not believe that threshold has been met.

There are other tools available. Economic pressure. Diplomatic isolation.
Coordinated international action. These approaches can be effective without
crossing the line into direct military intervention. These are complicated
matters, and there are rarely simple answers. But complexity is not an excuse
for abandoning restraint.

I have seen the costs of intervention firsthand. I remember U.S. troops in
Lebanon, where we lost Americans when the Marine barracks were bombed, a
mission I never supported. I have questioned whether large scale deployments of
boots on the ground, including aspects of Afghanistan, were the right approach,
or whether more limited and targeted actions would have better served our goals.

So yes, I hope any intervention produces good outcomes for the United States
and for the world. I truly do. But hope is not a strategy.

What troubles me most is the precedent we set and the signal we send. When
America acts, others are watching and learning. If we loosen the rules for
ourselves, we should not be surprised when others follow suit.

The use of American military power must always be guided by clear national
interest, respect for international order, and a deep awareness of long-term
consequences. Anything less risks undermining the very stability we seek to
protect.

READ MORE ON MY SUBSTACK <[link removed]>

John, I plan to remain engaged on this issue because these questions matter
for our country’s future. Your support helps make it possible to continue this
work in a serious and sustained way.

Donate to Support This Effort! <[link removed]>

Stay tuned for more updates! I'm so appreciative to have you on the team.



Thank you



-John



<[link removed]>



 

Get the Latest Updates:

Subscribe to My YouTube Channel <[link removed]>
Donate to Support This Effort! <[link removed]>

<[link removed]> <[link removed]>
<[link removed]> <[link removed]>













Paid for by Kasich for America, not authorized by any
candidate or candidate's committee.
www.JohnKasich.com


Unsubscribe
<[link removed]>