Narco-Terrorism: The Old War in New Clothes

By WPS News Staff Reporters

As the still closed U.S. government moves to brand Cartel de los Soles — the Venezuelan network accused of drugs and corruption — as a recognized “terrorist” entity, it’s essential to confront what this really means: the resurrection of the old playbook, dressed up in modern fear-mongering. This shift from “drug-trafficking” to “terrorism” risks dragging the United States into a large, open-ended regional war — one that mirrors past interventions, but now with tentacles wrapped around the language of national security.

The New Label, the Old Playbook
“Narcoterrorism,” despite its sinister ring, is not a juridical or universally agreed-upon category. The term emerged in Latin America during the 1980s — originally coined by Peruvian leadership to describe drug-fueled violence. Over decades, it has been used unevenly — sometimes to describe violent traffickers, other times to justify sweeping crackdowns and extrajudicial force. What was once controversial remains so today, because criminal networks, drug smugglers, and violent traffickers rarely match the structural or ideological profile typical of recognized terrorist organizations.

But by classifying Cartel de los Soles as a “terrorist” group, the current U.S. administration grants itself broad leeway: legal, military, and geopolitical. Under such a designation, what were formerly law-enforcement issues become grounds for military intervention — often outside the bounds of congressional oversight or international law.

This is not a small semantic swap. It’s a retooling of moral and legal justification, a framework that transforms policy debates into war policy. It rebrands dissent, destabilization, or regime change as righteous, even inevitable.

Why This Matters — 2025, Not 1985
In 2025, the U.S. already carries scars from prolonged foreign wars, military overcommitment, and furious domestic polarization. The swing toward labeling narcotics flows and alleged cartel violence as “terrorism” doesn’t just revive an old war logic — it enables consequences far beyond the alleged crime of drug trafficking.

• Military Intervention With Fewer Checks: By erasing the traditional crime-versus-terror distinction, the administration can deploy military force — airstrikes, naval blockades, covert special-operations action — under justification that bypasses standard judicial or congressional checks. Critics warn this may lead to indefinite “counter-terror” operations across Latin America.
• Destabilization and Regime Change Disguised as Crime-Fighting: The pattern here echoes previous operations from the late 20th century, where the U.S. justified interventions — from Panama to Central America — as drug-war measures, only to trigger regime change or broader destabilization. The narrative shifts from “we fight crime” to “we fight enemies,” with countries’ sovereignty reduced to bargaining chips.
• Domestic Acquiescence Through Fear: Narratives about drugs, terrorism, and national security evoke instinctive reactions: fear, xenophobia, and tribalism. In a polarized, overwhelmed media environment, this simplified framing can undercut public scrutiny — legitimate concerns about human rights, legality, long-term costs, or evidence become secondary.

What Public Opinion Says — And Why That Should Worry Us
Recent polling underscores the volatility of public sentiment once the full implications are framed. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from late 2025 found that only 29% of Americans support using U.S. military force to kill suspected drug traffickers abroad without judicial oversight. Meanwhile, 51% opposed it, and a quarter remained uncertain. Among those asked whether they support military intervention in Venezuela, the majority demurred — especially when risks to civilian life or sovereignty were highlighted.

That’s important. It shows that once the rhetoric gets real — when war gets dangerous, indefinite, and ambiguous — many Americans reject it. The fear-based narrative can rally some, but it doesn’t convert everyone.

The Real Threat: Endless Conflict Under a “Drug War” Headline
If we accept “narco-terrorism” as a catch-all justification, we run the risk of opening a new “forever war” — not in the Middle East, but in our hemisphere. The historical record of U.S. interventions in Latin America is packed with destabilization, civilian suffering, broken states, and long-term resentment. There is no guarantee that framing this as anti-drug policy will spare citizens — Venezuelan or otherwise — from military violence, political chaos, or deepening humanitarian crises.

Critically, law-enforcement cannot be substituted with bombs. Drugs and trafficking are social, economic, and political problems — they arise from poverty, inequality, corruption, demand, and global power dynamics. Military force might disrupt a route or kill a few smugglers, but it rarely addresses root causes. Worse, it often worsens instability.

Conclusion — Democracy, Not Drumbeats
Labeling alleged Latin-American drug networks “narco-terrorists” might win headlines and headlines might whip up support among hawkish voters. But that doesn’t make it just, legal, or wise. If we fall for this gambit, we risk trading sovereignty for slogans, democratic accountability for executive war powers, human rights for “security theater.”

We should demand evidence, transparency, checks — not fear-based war posture. Because once the drums start, the promise of quick victories rarely matches the long, bloody echo that follows.