Two centuries ago, US President James Monroe declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to European powers in what would became known in history books as the “Monroe Doctrine”.

Those of us who came of age during the ’60s well remember the Vietnam War, its horrific toll of human life, its cost, the division it caused, and its long-term effects upon those who served and survived.

We also remember the phony incidents and propaganda that threw our young men and women into combat in what became our nation’s longest war…which we lost.

As noted in 2008 by the U.S. Naval Institute in reference to the Gulf of Tonkin incident: “But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.”

Combined with the propaganda that the “Domino Theory” would see all of Southeast Asia under communist rule if the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, also known as “North Vietnam,” overthrew the government of South Vietnam, the Dogs of War were unleashed.

We saw a similar concocted reason for the Iraq War in the assurance from President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that “Weapons of Mass Destruction” – or WMDs – existed, just awaiting use against the United States. It was a flat out lie — but again, with horrifying consequences of death, destruction, cost, and long-term mental and health effects on the nation’s men and women in the military — all to virtually no positive outcome.

Comes now the next attempt to push our nation into yet another fabricated war — this time with Venezuela, which just coincidentally happens to have the largest proven reserves of oil on the planet at 303 billion barrels.

This time around it’s Trump’s propaganda machine that declares drugs from Venezuela are a threat to our nation on such a scale that we now have dozens of warships, planes, and 15,000 troops in the region as the president threatens to invade that sovereign nation and has already drawn international condemnation for blowing up suspected drug boats and killing more than 80 individuals — without releasing a scintilla of verification to the public.

Which begs the question: Given that three of the four members of Montana’s Congressional Delegation are veterans, and that two of them – Rep. Ryan Zinke and Sen. Tim Sheehy are former Navy SEALS – how can they stand silent while this deadly charade unfolds?

This is particularly poignant since other members of Congress — both Republican and Democrat — are openly questioning the fabricated rationale for the war. They’re also critical of a violation of the international Law of Armed Conflict by a “double tap” by SEAL Team 6 that killed two survivors left clinging to the wreckage of an alleged drug boat in the middle of the ocean.

As reported by the Associated Press: “I can’t imagine anyone, no matter what the circumstance, believing it is appropriate to kill people who are clinging to a boat in the water,” said Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College. “That is clearly unlawful.”

Given our past involvement in disastrous foreign wars fueled by propaganda and false information one would expect the veterans in Montana’s Congressional delegation to speak up, demand answers and proof, and honor the Oath of Office they took as soldiers and elected officials to uphold the Constitution’s mandate that only Congress may declare war.

Moreover, they have not even bothered to ask Montanans about sending their sons and daughters to yet another foolish foreign war — a “war” which they are aiding and abetting through their unconscionable silence. .

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Wednesday amplified an op-ed article calling for a Trump-backed regime change in Venezuela as administration continues to float the possibility of a ground war in the country.

The New York Post, a notably MAGA-friendly outlet often described as President Donald Trump's "favorite paper," published the piece Leavitt's official government X account shared on Wednesday. It was written María Corina Machado, an Venezuelan activist and leader of the country's opposition against President Nicolás Maduro. She was the recipient of the 2025 Nobel Prize, and has frequently praised Trump for his opposition to Maduro and attempted to court his help in removing the Venezuelan president from office.

Leavitt's account shared a link to the piece alongside its headline, "President Trump is a champion in the fight for ‘Venezuelan freedom.'"

"White House press secretary amplifies column calling for US-led regime change in Venezuela," Olivier Knox, a senior political reporter for U.S. News & World Report, wrote in comment responding to Leavitt's.

In the piece, Machado characterized the Maduro government as hijacking the country by way of a regime-backed drug cartel, Cartel de los Soles. The Trump administration recently designated the group as a terrorist organization, though critics have pointed out that the term "Cartel de los Soles" does not refer to a specific, distinct organization, but it rather used as a catch-all term for corrupt government officials involved in drug trafficking.

She further accuses the Maduro government of "crimes against humanity and other grave atrocities," and of running Venezuela "the way mobsters control territory: through fear, torture and the systematic destruction of the nation’s democratic pillars."

She also praises Trump's actions against Maduro as "decisive action" and dismisses criticisms that military intervention would destabilize Venezuela.

Critics have accused the Trump administration of seeking to gain access to Venezuelan oil fields by deposing Maduro, not pursuing regime change to support democracy. Machado has also been criticized overall for her enthusiastic support of Trump, raising concerns the country would become overly deferential to him with her in power.

During his first term, U.S. President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda was often described as "isolationist" — a major departure from the hawkish conservatism of GOP Presidents Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, George HW Bush and George W. Bush and the hawkish liberalism of Democratic Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson and Harry Truman.

Yet since his return to the White House, Trump has been highly confrontational with Venezuela — from strikes against Venezuelan boats (which he alleges were smuggling illegal drugs to the United States) to reportedly considering military attacks against President Nicolas Maduro's leftist government.

Now, according to The Independent's Lucy Leeson, U.S.-based airlines are making a concerted effort to avoid flying over Venezuelan airspace.

"Flight Radar shows airlines diverting away from Venezuela after Donald Trump told airlines to consider the airspace closed," Leeson reports in a late November article. "Following dozens of strikes against alleged drug-carrying boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that have killed more than 80 people since September, Trump suggested to military service members in a Thanksgiving Day phone call that the U.S. would soon take action 'on land.'"

In a Saturday morning, November 29 post on his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote, "To all Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers, please consider THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA TO BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY."

Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump’s foreign‑policy approach and his handling of the United States’ relationships with key allies have raised eyebrows. In recent months, his administration has stepped up its military campaign against drug cartels in Venezuela — a move that has drawn criticism domestically.

In an article for the Guardian published Sunday, foreign policy commentator Simon Tisdall argued that his threats to attack Venezuela and "dangerous and self defeating."

He added that this policy would benefit China instead of the U.S.

"Trump’s efforts to reprise the role of Latin American neighbourhood policeman, emulating former president Theodore Roosevelt – a big stick-wielding serial interventionist – are regressive, dangerous and self-defeating. Long-term, the big winner will most likely be Beijing, an increasingly influential regional actor, investor and leading member of the Brics group of nations. As the US burns its bridges across the world, Trump is making China great again," Tisdall wrote.

The writer argued that, despite his tough rhetoric, the president doesn't know what he is doing.

"Yet given his hapless blundering on other key foreign issues, the most likely explanation for Trump’s behaviour is that, typically, he hasn’t got a clue what he’s doing – in Venezuela or Latin America as whole. There’s no plan. He throws his weight about, makes impetuous misjudgments, stokes fear of foreigners and bases policy on whether he 'likes' other leaders. In 2019, with Maduro on the ropes, Trump blinked. Today, full-scale military intervention in Venezuela remains unlikely. More probable is an intensified pressure campaign of destabilisation, sanctions, maritime strikes, and air and commando raids," he wrote.

Tisdall further argued that Trump's decision to try and intervene in Brazil's politics backfired.

"Trump’s attempt to use punitive tariffs and sanctions to strong-arm Brazil into pardoning its disgraced former hard-right president Jair Bolsonaro backfired spectacularly last month. Huge crowds took to the streets of Brazilian cities to defend what they rightly saw as an assault on Brazilian sovereignty and rule of law."

He continued: "The popularity of Bolsonaro’s successor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, soared. 'We are not, and never again will we be, anyone’s colony,' he declared. Lula told Trump, in effect, to get lost. Then, when they met at the UN general assembly, Trump backed off and played nice. Keir Starmer, please note.'"