Tag trump

What Counts as a “Real” Use of the Military?

genzmilitary Leave a comment

Service members have been asked to take on a great deal of international responsibility in the last year. Recently, a group of Democratic lawmakers released a video urging military personnel and intelligence officials to refuse unlawful orders, particularly those that might violate the Constitution. The message was straightforward but striking: even the lowest-ranking service members may ultimately be asked to serve as a final check on political decisions to use force.

At the same time, the Trump administration has pursued an increasingly assertive posture abroad. In early January, U.S. forces were sent into Venezuela to arrest President Nicolás Maduro. While polling on this specific action is limited, what we do have suggests broad public skepticism. According to a Quinnipiac poll conducted shortly after the operation, a majority of American voters opposed U.S. intervention in Venezuelan politics, and nearly three-quarters opposed sending U.S. ground troops to control the country. However, a CBS News Poll shows more ambivalence than support or dissension among Americans in general.

These events raise a deeper and more enduring question, one that extends beyond any single country or administration:

What kinds of military actions do Americans actually see as legitimate?

Polling often focuses on approval or disapproval of particular interventions. But legitimacy operates at a more basic level. It shapes whether new uses of force are accepted, questioned, or resisted before public debate ever reaches the details of a specific mission.

This is not the first time we have seen this pattern emerge. In earlier posts, we examined attitudes toward using the military to address domestic disorder and drug trafficking, comparing civilian young adults with ROTC cadets and military academy students. Those findings revealed a consistent theme: both groups were generally open to the idea of using troops in these contexts, but clearly hesitant to do so.

In neither case did we observe overwhelming enthusiasm for military involvement. Instead, support tended to cluster around conditional approval. This finding suggests a level of uncertainty rather than endorsement. Cadets and civilians alike appeared to recognize these missions as plausible, but also as departures from the military’s traditional role.

These earlier results help frame the current analysis. Together, they suggest that younger Americans do not reject military force outright, but they are cautious about extending it into roles that resemble policing, domestic control, or social problem–solving rather than national defense.

A Pattern Begins to Emerge

Across these four roles, a consistent pattern appears. Support for military action is strongest when the mission aligns with traditional war-fighting. As missions become more ambiguous, indirect, or political, support steadily declines.

Importantly, this skepticism is not limited to civilians. Even among ROTC cadets and military academy students—future officers who are deeply embedded in military culture—support becomes more cautious as missions move away from conventional combat. The next generation does not reject the military. But it does appear to distinguish sharply between defense and discretionary intervention. The graphic below captures this pattern conceptually.

What Comes Next

This post has focused on the big picture: how legitimacy frames public reactions to military force at a time of expanding executive authority and contested interventions.

In the next post (planned for February), we will walk through the data in detail, showing how support varies across civilian students, ROTC cadets, and military academy students. We will also see where those differences disappear entirely. Together, these posts aim to clarify not whether Americans support the military, but how they believe it should be used.

Drugs, Presidents, and the Military

genzmilitary Leave a comment

On August 8, 2025, the New York Times reported that President Donald Trump secretly authorized U.S. military action against Latin American drug cartels. While striking, this is not new—U.S. presidents have repeatedly used the military in the ‘war on drugs.’

President Richard Nixon set the tone in 1969 with Operation Intercept, nearly shutting down border crossings to curb marijuana imports and deploying the Navy in the Gulf of Mexico. Nixon later declared drug traffickers ‘national enemies,’ launched the DEA in 1973, and even floated the bizarre idea of unleashing a screwworm to destroy opium poppies in Southeast Asia.

Ronald Reagan intensified the fight, declaring the drug trade a national security threat. His Florida Task Force used Navy destroyers, and Vice President George H. W. Bush oversaw operations.

As president, George H. W. Bush expanded these efforts—doubling Defense Department anti-drug funding, making the Pentagon lead for intelligence, launching Joint Task Force-6 to support border enforcement, and deploying Special Forces to Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. He also ordered Operation Just Cause (1989), the invasion of Panama to capture dictator Manuel Noriega on drug-trafficking charges.

During the Clinton administration, direct military interdiction waned in favor of training and intelligence support, with military-adjacent leadership—such as General Barry McCaffrey as ‘Drug Czar’—and amendments to Posse Comitatus widening permissible domestic military support.

George W. Bush later launched ‘Plan Colombia,’ funneling roughly $10–12 billion (2000–2021) into military and security aid to Colombia to counter narcotics, yielding mixed results—improved security but persistent coca cultivation.

 Civilian ROTC Military Academy Total 
Very appropriate 39.0% 36.0% 31.2% 32.6% 
Somewhat appropriate 35.8% 41.5% 41.6% 41.2% 
Not very appropriate 18.3% 19.0% 23.4% 22.7% 
No opinion 6.9% 3.6% 3.3% 3.5% 
Total surveyed 218 422 3252 3892 
Total % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Table 1. Respondents Who Believe that it is Appropriate for the Military to “To Combat Drug Trafficking” by Military Affiliation

Since military personnel are expected to enforce these drug-related policies, what do they think of such missions? Our previous post with regard to domestic issues suggests that civilians would be more open to it than their military counterparts. Findings show, here, that support also declines with closer military affiliation. Academy cadets are least supportive—only 31.8% deem it ‘very appropriate.’ Civilian students are more approving at 39%, yet still lower than the 51% who supported using troops for managing domestic disorder in our last post.

This suggests academy cadets prioritize traditional defense roles, while civilians display greater openness to expanded military engagement—including in domestic and transnational arenas. Their lower support for utilizing troops to help with the war on drugs could stem from the fact that our sample is younger than the general population (in their late teens and 20s). They may be less open to fighting a war on drugs because, according to Gallup, young people generally support legalization of drugs more than older Americans, especially among conservatives. 

Taken together, the historical record and public opinion data highlight a tension in American civil-military relations. Presidents across parties have consistently expanded the military’s role in drug enforcement, often framing narcotics as threats to national security. Yet those closest to military service remain cautious about broadening its mission, underscoring an enduring divide between civilian expectations of military power and the professional ethos of the armed forces.