In 1969, I was in Vietnam and was present at a meeting of congressmen (all men) who came to be briefed and to discuss the war. The primary question for many of them, primarily the more conservative Republicans, was how do “we” win the war. Nixon had just been elected, and one of his promises was that he would end it. It eventually did end in 1975 with the collapse of the South Vietnamese government.
The general and others briefing the congressmen were candid—in contrast to prior briefings when General Westmorland was commanding Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, and emphasizing body counts and his optimistic opinions about the war’s progress. After the visitors had a chance to digest the briefers’ pessimistic evaluations of the South Vietnamese government and its martial capabilities, one of the men asked again how we would win the war.
The general said, tongue firmly in his cheek, that it wouldn’t be a problem. We needed to add another 500,000 to 1 million more troops, “bomb the hell out of them,” invade the North and accept casualties in the hundreds of thousands, and then shoot everyone who opposed us after we had fully occupied the country. Knowing full well that this was complete hyperbole and certainly just the opposite of the military opinions in the room, I was amazed that after a somewhat stunned pause, some of the congressional attendees actually thought this was a real plan. After they were told that this was just an example to show the impossibility of winning the war, I still believed that many of them were disappointed.
I think of this briefing now and realize that it showed me that certain elected—and, obviously, unelected—Americans don’t care about the consequences of our government’s actions, both on our nation and the world. I also believe that, to many, the end justifies the means and that the means do not even enter into their consideration when they analyze a possible course of action. To callously believe that killing untoward numbers of Vietnamese and Americans was worth it to occupy a nation that had fought the Japanese, the French, and the Americans for almost 30 years (the Japanese occupation began in 1940), and then to assume that the occupation would be unopposed and would in some way benefit the U.S., was almost beyond belief to all the military, State Department, and CIA attendees.
We won’t know what Trump will do on a day-to-day basis, but the latest digressions from our founding ideals could not be clearer. He and his underlings have told us that we should not be naive: The world is a cruel and nasty place, and might makes right. If we can take actions to protect and enhance the income of the Trump family and their autocrat supporters, we will. Just read the statements of our president, vice president, secretary of state, and the president’s other advisors. We are the bully on the block because we can be.
Greenland, Canada, Mexico, and Colombia are the most glaring examples of potential democracies that we will possibly seize by force of arms if we so decide. Forget about treaties, the U.N., the fact that they are all allies, and that we went to war and set up NATO to protect against invasions of sovereign states. That is meaningless now. We no longer believe in democracy and the rule of law, international or domestic. If Americans tolerate this thinking and accept it and accept Trump’s plan for American foreign policy, his kingdom will be effectively established.
The Republicans in Congress have done nothing to stand up to him—and apparently will not. The Democrats seem unable to gain traction, and the 1,600 January 6 rioters who attempted to overthrow the election results by force are now heroes, having been pardoned on the first day of Trump’s second term. Perhaps Franklin’s reply about whether the new country was a republic rings truer as a warning now than ever before. When asked, he said, “A republic, if you can keep it” Maybe we cannot, or will not.
We might as well establish a new Axis, such as existed in World War II when Italy, Germany, and Japan invaded sovereign nations. Today, the U.S. would be a member of a new Axis, along with China and Russia, rather than an Ally and crucial partner with the free nations that fought totalitarianism 80 years ago. Trump’s national security agenda has effectively described how China will have almost free rein in Asia and the Pacific and Russia will not be interfered with in Ukraine and Europe (at least as long as Putin is in control). Incredible as it may seem, our country is reversing its founding tenets as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in order to benefit a failed real estate developer and his corrupt cronies.
I am not going to bore you with examples of Trump’s deference to dictators and undemocratic governments around the globe, except for one recent example: Trump has invaded Venezuela under the pretense of stopping its fentanyl smuggling (which does not exist). He has said nothing about the dictator’s regime of terror and the lack of democracy in the nation and has decided to let the former vice president of the old regime “run” the country under his guidance. He is concerned more about doing oil deals, saying he will control the profits of future sales on Venezuelan crude. I would suggest that foregoing is inconceivable unless there are Americans in Venezuela, and I will not go into detail about the impossibility of rebuilding the oil infrastructure within less than 10 to 20 years, the current oil market and present concessions held by U.S. oil interests, or the uncertainty of Venezuela’s stability. Anyway, the legal pretext for this invasion has been to bring Maduro to justice in a U.S. court for drug trafficking.
We have a recent example of Trump’s desire to bring to justice and try foreign dictators in the U.S. for drug offenses.
From 2014 to 2022, Honduras was governed by a particularly brutal dictator: Juan Orlando Hernandez. He was extradited by Honduras to the U.S. (there was literally dancing in the streets), and in 2022, he was convicted in the Southern District of New York of smuggling over 400 tons of cocaine into our country. He was sentenced to 45 years in jail. Trump pardoned him in December 2025 because “the man that I pardoned was, if you could equate it to us, he was treated like the Biden administration treated a man named Trump,” adding, “This was a man who was persecuted very unfairly. He was the head of the country.”
Sen. Mark Warner (D – Virginia) stated the obvious, “You cannot credibly argue that drug-trafficking charges demand invasion in one case while issuing a pardon in another.” Especially one who was found guilty after a jury trial in a federal district court, quite similar to many of the defendants who were found guilty or plead guilty after January 6 and were also pardoned.
Why did he pardon Hernandez? Who knows. Maybe to try and influence the Honduran elections (his preferred right-wing candidate won, and Hernandez was of the same political party), or perhaps because of the letter from Roger Stone asking for a pardon which Trump said he never read until after he decided to issue it. Was it to open Honduras to more U.S. companies, help halt immigration, or counter China’s increasing influence? The pardon decision was done so quickly it was probably less idealogical than seat-of-the-pants economics, which is just as worrisome as the congressmen in Vietnam who never considered the possible ramifications of a supposed all-out invasion and the effects it would have on American and Vietnamese lives, our nation, and the world.
Many of us believe we are at a crossroads, and it is now completely clear where the Trump highway leads. He has told us, and we have seen the results of his governance. Will we keep our ideals and core beliefs or accept foreign and domestic policies which subvert the freedom and equality we have lived under for 250 years? Outrage is justified, but it is also the responsibility of members of Congress and judges to uphold their oaths and live up to their responsibilities as independent branches of government.
