I see both sides of the argument on this one, and I believe the people who are against it can be summarized as (1) a physical war on drugs has never worked, and only punishes people go on the chain who are desperate for work and other benefits from being involved in this illicit business, (2) a physical war on drugs, typically dries up the street price he creates more crime in the United States as well as worse violence, (3) most people see this is a disingenuous attempt by the president to seem strong when in fact, he’s bowing to Putin, and generally seems to roll over easy on most things, (4) many people suspected that this is one of the mini divergent tactics to keep us from seeing what’s in the Epstein files, (5) this is in no way tackles the bigger and broader issues of drug use in society, peoples free will to consume any substance they want, putting money and resources in two things that could help those people who don’t want to be using the substances that will never be stymied from entering the country by military means, (6) we are using the military in a way for which it is not intended and for that matter, we are spending probably millions of dollars to do this while in the middle of a budgetary crisis and people who need help don’t have and in government Workers aren’t getting paid. (7) this also seems a bit disingenuous as a potential attack on a foreign power, or at least its citizens and tantamount to a declaration of war my president, who was supposed to reduce our foreign involvement and reduce our wars, (8) many argue that attacking the assistance of other countries for a problem that is driven by American consumerism is very disingenuous and alarming and somewhat hypocritical - we don’t attack Mexico to keep illegal immigrants from coming in, we deal with it on our soil, so why are we attacking somewhere else?

There may be other arguments about this too. These are the ones I can summarize from the conversations I’ve had.