Retired Franklin County naval officer purpose of military power is making us safer and more secure
By Steve Deal
There’s nothing new about U.S. interventions in the Western hemisphere to protect the safety and security of the American people.
Last night’s events in Venezuela came exactly 35 years to the day from when Panamanian president Manuel Noriega was captured and tried for narco-trafficking, among other crimes.
The majority of Americans alive today have probably never considered or studied it, but we should never forget that we lost 23 servicemen during that invasion in 1989. One of them was the brother of my aviation squadron mate, a U.S. Navy SEAL. Two years later, the surviving brother and I were deployed to Panama flying counter-drug operations.
Our American servicemen and women who are currently in harm’s way — including the Green Mountain Boys of the Vermont National Guard, deployed in the region — deserve our support. Although I have not yet seen any reports of casualties, I pray for their safety and for every single one to return to their families whole and unharmed. And I thank them for their great service to our country.
For those Vermonters who want to debate or protest the policy of this, I will point you towards the pronouncements of the New York Times editorial board this morning.
Even while going through its perfunctory, reflexive scourging of this Administration, the Times itself lays out the case for action: “(now-captured Venezuelan President Maduro) is undemocratic and repressive, and has destabilized the Western Hemisphere in recent years. The United Nations recently issued a report detailing more than a decade of killings, torture, sexual violence and arbitrary detention by henchmen against his political opponents. He stole Venezuela’s presidential election in 2024. He has fueled economic and political disruption throughout the region by instigating an exodus of nearly eight million migrants.”
As someone who has commanded units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and served to support operations under previous Administrations which exercised the policy choices of a so-called “responsibility to protect” the peoples of far-away nations from the very same crimes as listed above, I can say this: we raised our right hands to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is nothing more precious to us than the pride of our fellow citizens and the honor of defending them.
The late former U.S Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously remarked while arguing for U.S. intervention to protect endangered populations in Central Europe, “what is the purpose of this superb military if we are not prepared to use it?” It is interesting and instructive to think about how previous Administrations from both major political parties have viewed the use of U.S. military power to achieve their policy goals.
There is an important distinction between discretionary humanitarian intervention and non-discretionary duty to defend Americans. If you met everyday Americans in drug-ravaged towns across the country, or better yet, right here in Burlington, St. Johnsbury, or Rutland, and asked about the purpose of military power in making them safer and more secure, you may receive a different and less self-aggrandizing answer than some of their elected representatives.
My personal view is that our first responsibility to protect applies to our own citizenry, a responsibility which needs no imprimatur of international organizations or moral approval from foreign leaders, a sense of responsibility we inherited from our first President. The basis of all legality in defending our citizens against hostile acts and intent rests in that grave responsibility.
The author, a Franklin County resident, is a retired U.S. Navy Captain.