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.