“A little stopover.”
That is how you describe picking up coffee on the way home. Hearing it applied to another country ought to make Americans pause.
At his October 23 rally in Fort Myers, President Donald Trump suggested that American warships returning from Iran could stop near Cuba, prompting its leaders to surrender before Marco Rubio arrived to complete an agreement. Reuters reported the remarks. They establish what the president said, not that a military operation has been ordered.
But presidential language matters. Especially when the distance between a crowd’s applause and another family’s catastrophe can be measured in decisions made behind closed doors.
America First needs a destination. Americans deserve to know where this is supposed to lead.
Opposing communism does not require a blank check.
Americans can condemn political repression, support the Cuban people’s right to govern themselves, and still demand that Washington explain any proposed use of military force. Those positions fit together perfectly well. A commitment to freedom should make us more demanding of our own government’s conduct.
Otherwise, what exactly are we defending?
There is a familiar political trap here: question the proposed remedy, and someone accuses you of sympathizing with the disease. Ask about intervention, and suddenly you are defending Havana. Ask about constitutional authority, and you lack resolve.
That is an effective way to silence a citizen. It is a miserable way to govern a republic.
Before anyone celebrates the prospect of surrender, let us discuss what follows it.
Who would exercise authority? What would happen if Cuba’s leadership refused to yield? If it fractured? Who would protect civilians, secure essential services, and prevent competing factions from turning a transition into a struggle for control?
These are planning questions. Any administration contemplating force should be prepared to answer them.
The ships belong to the United States. So do the obligations incurred by sending them.
History offers an especially uncomfortable warning here. In April 1961, a CIA-trained and funded force of Cuban exiles landed at the Bay of Pigs. According to the State Department’s historical account, Cuban forces defeated the invasion within two days. The failure strengthened Castro’s position.
The circumstances today are different. The lesson about confident predictions remains relevant: an operation intended to weaken a government can help entrench it.
Good intentions cannot substitute for a credible assessment of consequences. Neither can contempt for the target.
Then there is the matter of authority.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Presidents also possess military powers, and disputes over their scope are longstanding. A rally remark alone establishes no constitutional violation. It does, however, justify asking what authority the administration would invoke if rhetoric became action.
Congress should demand that explanation before a confrontation leaves members voting on consequences they never meaningfully debated.
A president’s confidence cannot do Congress’s job for it.
Accountability must also extend beyond the opening operation. Americans should expect clear objectives, an explanation of costs, regular oversight, and a stated standard for ending any military commitment. Officials should have to explain how their proposal protects American security and what they will do if their assumptions fail.
An exit strategy should exist before the entrance becomes irresistible.
And somewhere in all this, the Cuban people deserve to appear as people.
They have children, homes, loyalties, fears, and aspirations that cannot be reduced to a government we oppose. Their future involves more than whether Washington can produce a dramatic display of strength.
A country does not become an errand because a president has ships in the neighborhood.
Supporters of America First should be especially willing to insist on these distinctions. A principle must be strong enough to guide the leader you support. Otherwise, it becomes a slogan that follows him wherever he goes.
Patriotism includes the courage to ask a president you voted for to explain himself.
There may be legitimate threats requiring American action. If so, identify them. Present the evidence. Explain the objective, the authority, the alternatives, and the likely consequences. Give the public an argument substantial enough to examine.
Americans have every right to expect strength from their president. They have an equal right to expect judgment.
Before we applaud another stopover, we should know the destination, and who will bear the cost of getting there.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media’s conservative reporting exposing the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can keep bringing you the truth.
Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
