Opinion – “(Narco-trafficking) boat strikes (in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific) are not the answer. What we are moving towards now could be an expansion of (Operation) Southern Spear, really a counter (narcotics) cartel operation process that creates total systemic friction in this (drug) network.”
That was Marine Corps Gen. Francis Donovan, commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee last Thursday about the expanded Trump military campaign against Western Hemisphere drug cartels.
With most people’s attention focused on the Iran war, I decided to watch this hearing, which also featured testimony from Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot, commander of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), who, as I will discuss below, made clear that negotiations with Greenland and Denmark are moving forward and that there was nothing behind President Trump’s talk of invading that Arctic island.
Just a few months ago, the Trump administration’s repeated destruction of drug-trafficking boats and the President’s talk of annexing Greenland were front-page stories, leading Americans to wonder where the President was taking the country militarily, especially after the initial June 2025 one-day bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites and the subsequent successful capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January 2026.
Trump’s willingness to take military action has clearly increased, so I believe it is fair to use last week’s testimony to see what his earlier efforts have yielded.
From September 2, 2025, when Trump first told reporters about the initial strike against a narco-trafficking boat and later published a dramatic video of the operation. true socialAlong with the killing of 159 individuals, there have been 45 such attacks in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific by people Trump or his officials have described as terrorists or narco-traffickers.
Last week, when General Donovan told senators directly, “Boat strikes are not the answer,” he later referred to the creation of what has been called the US Counter Cartel Coalition or America’s Shield.
Donovan described it as 17 Western Hemisphere countries, with the US founding on March 7. What he called “a coalition that will have a military aspect. When I say military, it’s really partners that are ready to join with us to move forward against the cartels, with varying degrees of leverage depending on what they can bring.”
In his prepared statement to the Committee, Donovan described how the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá, Colombia, has an Embassy Intelligence Fusion Cell that, in partnership with Colombian authorities, works to interdict drugs by conducting aerial ISR (intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance) and promoting the overall intelligence sharing effort. We provide timely critical information on cocaine laboratories, production and departure areas and top FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization) leaders to enable (US) Colombian security forces. For taking action.”
Responding to a senator’s question, Donovan said, “We have recently established an Ecuadorian fusion cell and are meeting with the Ecuadorian Defense Minister because he is leading the way.”
The SOUTHCOM commander did not mention to senators that earlier this month he and Rear Admiral Mark A. Schaeffer, head of US Special Operations-South, visited Quito and spoke with Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa. The Ecuadorian president’s office said in a statement that the three discussed plans to share information and coordinate operations at airports and ports.
Along with Ecuador, Donovan said, “the other country that is really moving forward is Paraguay.” He said it has recently signed a SOFA (status of forces) agreement with the United States that allows us to work more closely with the FMS (Foreign Military Sales) of radars, this will increase air domain awareness in Paraguay.
At one point Donovan said of the US Counter Cartel Coalition, “Putting it together, I believe that really kinetic (boat) strikes will be one of many tools and probably not the most effective tool when we really look at it as a campaign approach.”
One issue raised several times during the hearing focused on questions about the legality of the military’s killing of individuals alleged to be narco-traffickers without trial or evidence that they are actually traffickers.
Donovan has said more than once that he can talk in closed session about the intelligence involved. But when Donovan was asked about the targeting criteria for approving strikes in international waters, he responded that they were using “almost reasonable certainty, reasonable certainty, near certainty” to make the final decision.
However, Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) questioned the words used by the Trump administration to describe the people on the boats. She asked at one point, “What guidance have you received or been issued for how to behave differently with colleagues in a group than with a direct member of a group?”
His question implied that those killed included individuals “affiliated” with drug cartels and added that “the administration is calling these people associates in their legal justification, but that’s different from being direct direct members of a group.”
Responding, Donovan further complicated the situation by saying, “We have a definition of associates attached to that classified definition. In a closed setting. I would like to share word-by-word what that definition is, Senator.”
Duckworth responded, “I am concerned about the looseness of the term that SOUTHCOM is using publicly to report anyone we have killed, especially an associate or ally. These are two terms that were used, indicating an even looser connection to any associated threat.”
Just before the session ended, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, raised questions about “accords,” meaning execution orders to initiate military action, related to the boat strikes.
Reed said, “There is a legal requirement for the (Defense) Department to provide the committee with those accords, which you (committee chairman Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)) and I have requested several times…. The (Defense) Secretary (Pete Hegseth) has not met this legal requirement and your testimony to General Donovan confirmed in my mind that we need these documents to understand and oversee them. That’s our role – these actions. Take care.”
The idea of occupying Cuba has been on President Trump’s mind for some time. Most recently, during an Oval Office meeting on March 17, he told reporters, “We will do something with Cuba very soon.” A day earlier, the President had spoken of “taking Cuba by any means necessary”, adding, “Whether I liberate it, take it over, I think I can do whatever I want with it.”
Donovan asked, “Are we currently conducting any military rehearsals that involve occupying, annexing, or otherwise asserting control over Cuba?” replied, “There is no US Southern Command,” and added that he did not know of any other command.
On the question of the subsequent occupation of Cuba, Donovan said, “We have general ideas as to how many forces are needed, but right now the focus is entirely on securing Guantanamo Bay and the American Embassy for the protection of American personnel. That’s the only facts and figures and plans we have at this time.”
As for Greenland and Denmark, NORTHCOM’s General Guillot said, they were both “very cooperative… very eager to discuss ways forward to improve our defense capabilities.”
He said, “We are expanding with Denmark into the defense areas that are permitted under the 1951 agreement…We really don’t need a new treaty. It’s very broad and it’s obviously very favorable to our operations or potential operations in Greenland.”
The area Guillot referred to was “expanding the (Greenland) defense areas from the Pitfik Space Force Base, where we are now, to these other areas, which will help our homeland defense mission.”
He said the Pentagon’s “challenges in the Arctic start with ports and the ability to independently navigate through the harsh conditions of the Arctic, both at sea, on land and in the air. So I’m working with my department and others to try to develop more (sea) ports, more airspace, which opens up more options for our (Department of Defense) secretary and for the President if we need them in the Arctic… which ranges from Alaska to Canada and Greenland.”
Guillot said he specifically wanted “resources and force projection capability on the approach route to North America (from Russia), which as you know is the Arctic is the shortest route. So, in many ways is our most vulnerable route. We are very well established in Canada and Alaska and it will be important to have more capability with what I call a 2:00 (o’clock) approach.”
He also said, referring to Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense proposal, “the ability to launch fighters and tankers to be the first line of defense against cruise missiles that could be launched from the Arctic (part of Greenland).” Furthermore, Guillot noted, “the presence of the port for our navy, which also gives us the Golden Dome and (hence) the ballistic missile defense capability.”
Trump was apparently never serious about annexing Greenland; Like Venezuela, their war on the Western Hemisphere’s drug cartels remains a work in progress, although the capture of Maduro was a well-run special operation.
The common denominator in Trump’s above actions is surprise, and a lack of preparation of the public or Congress for what was about to happen.
Attacking Iran was and remains a much bigger and more dangerous step, and as we have seen – again done without preparing the public or Congress and in this case without considering its worldwide economic and diplomatic long-term implications.
Trump will pay a domestic political price for Iran, but so will the US when it comes to continuing world leadership.
Cipher Brief is committed to publishing multiple perspectives on national security issues presented by deeply experienced national security professionals. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.
Do you have any perspective to share based on your experience in the national security arena? Send it to editor@thecipherbrief.com for consideration for publication.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspectives, and analysis at The Cipher Brief
