【軍傳媒／國際軍事新聞】為了打擊來自 Cartel de los Soles（太陽販毒集團），阻止毒品流入美國，美國部署了一支以福特號核動力航母（USS Gerald R. Ford）與其護航群、兩棲登陸艦與其他支援艦／後勤線為核心的聯合艦隊，搭載 83 架各類飛機（包括 F-35、P-8、無人機等），發起了南方之矛行動（Operation Southern Spear），至今擊沉時數艘小型快艇之外，亦有劍指委內瑞拉推翻現任總統馬杜洛的態勢，彷彿是1983年美軍入侵格瑞那達的再版。
根據Defense One報導分析，南方之矛行動許多被擊沉的只是舊款、成本低廉的快艇，一艘39英尺的 Flipper-type 快艇即便是新艇也只要40萬美元，遠低於部署單艘航母一天的成本。此外使用的彈藥，其單枚成本甚至超過毒販一個月收入的數倍。換句話說，在「投入 vs 目標價值／敵人資源」的計算中，美國是用遠超過對手的代價去撲殺相對便宜、低成本的毒品運輸平臺，過往這種「過度投入、低產出」的行動，美國都將陷入「付出遠高於收穫」的泥沼。
南方之矛的不對稱性與戰略風險
這場行動其實已經超過一般反毒的「警察／海上攔截」邏輯，而更接近軍事部署、乃至於「地緣政治壓力」的試探。當一個國家為了對付一個低資源、不具重大軍事實力的對手，動用航母、核子潛艦、兩棲艦、空中力量與無人機，這不再是一場純粹的執法行動，而是一場軍事威嚇斬首行動。
這樣的壓倒性不對稱軍力部署，一方面確保美方在海上的優勢，但也極具挑釁意味。因為部署本身，就可能改變該地區海上力量的權力平衡，引發委內瑞拉更多軍事緊張、沿岸防禦或非對稱反制（如快艇突襲、小型水雷／反艦武器／近岸導彈部署等）。
資料顯示，南方之矛行動不僅是摧毀毒品流通進入美國的管道，更試圖切斷支持委內瑞拉政權的毒品資金來源，進而削弱其軍警高層對政權的忠誠度與財政支持，削弱政權根基，整個行動更像是一場「半軍事、半經濟／金融」手段的混合壓力。
川普政府的算盤：國安、政治與權力考量
面對上述「不划算」的算術與高風險、高成本部署，為什麼川普政府仍毅然決然展開並擴大南方之矛？顯然不只是反毒，也不只是執法。以下，從幾個可能動機分析。
- 將國安與政治合法性綁定 — 重塑其強人／保守派形象
川普長期以來將「非法移民、大量毒品流入、美國城市暴力」與移民／邊境政策掛鉤。對他及其支持者而言，毒品走私與販毒不只是犯罪，而是「對美國社會與家庭的深層威脅」。因此，以「保護人民安全、防止毒品侵蝕」為理由，發動南方之矛，在政治語境上可以鞏固川普作為「國家安全捍衛者」、「美國內部秩序守護者」的形象。
在這樣的框架下，即使經濟上似乎「不划算」，在政治／意識形態收益、選民動員價值上，仍可能高於成本。特別是在他潛在尋求連任或鞏固黨內影響力時，這種「硬派安全」姿態，可能對其支持者具有強大號召力。
另一方面，由於他過去對傳統海外「長期戰爭」採批判態度、強調「不讓美國再付出血與錢」，此次若能強調「這是為了保家衛國、回擊毒品、保護城市」，就能把巨大投入轉換成「必要犧牲」，並以此合理化。 - 將反毒／反販毒升級為地緣戰略 — 對委內瑞拉施壓、改變地區平衡
如前所述，南方之矛可能不只是打擊販毒，它對委內瑞拉政權構成壓力，川普或其幕僚可能視此為低風險／低成本（比全面入侵低得多）的地緣政治工具。即便財政與軍事成本很高，但與全面動武或大規模地面入侵相比，其政治成本與國際風險相對更低。
此外，這樣的行動還可能向其他地區（例如加勒比、拉美、不穩定國家）釋放信號：美國願意對毒品、敘販毒、以及與毒品有關的政權加大壓力，甚至動用航母打擊群與空中力量。這種示警與武力投射，本身就是戰略工具，有助於維持美國在西半球的主導地位。 - 對內／對盟友：重塑軍事、產業與政治聯盟利益
從第一篇文章論述的「成本擬制」（cost imposition）觀點來看，美國過去依靠高成本高技術武力，迫使對手負擔無法承受的軍事開支，最終達到脅迫／傾覆的效果。對川普而言，重啟或加大這種依賴昂貴軍事資產（航母、飛機、無人機、先進武器系統等）的政策，也可能與其希望重振美國防產業、鞏固軍工與國防承包商利益鏈、在經濟與就業層面為其基地（票倉）創造價值有關。換句話說，這既是軍事行動，也是經濟／政治操作。
特別是在美國國內政治環境、選舉考量、黨派博弈、與對手（國會、媒體、盟友）的關係中，透過這樣的大規模軍事部署與行動，可以展示「強硬」、「敢作為」，對其權力基礎、聲望與選民支持帶來助力。
矛盾與風險
儘管川普可能因上述政治、戰略、產業利益選擇賭這一把，但從軍事現實／長期可行性來看，這條路存在多重矛盾與風險。如果一個國家必須用遠高於對手成本的資源來對付基層、低成本、分散的小目標（快艇、個別販毒者、小型組織），長期下來這會構成沉重負擔，削弱海空戰力在其他區域的部署能力，也可能引發美國內部對國防開支效率的質疑。
如果對手（或潛在對手）選擇「等待 + 分散 + 非對稱反擊」策略，美國再怎麼投入昂貴資源，也可能永遠無法「根除」對手。毒品販運、敘販毒網絡是低成本、高靈活性、分散式的貓捉老鼠遊戲，很難徹底勝利。
另外目前的空襲／擊沉行動法律合法性已經受到質疑，若目標被證實是平民或非武裝者，或缺乏充分證據證明其是毒販，是否符合國際法與海權法規仍有爭議。
川普真正意圖推測
綜合上述分析川普即使付出龐大財政成本，也堅持推動南方之矛的原因，主要可能基於以下邏輯：
- 政治與國安敘事：塑造自己為「強硬打擊毒品與犯罪、保護國家安全」的領導者形象，對其核心支持者有高度吸引力。
- 地緣戰略工具：借反毒行動為表面，以制裁與軍事壓力混合方式削弱委內瑞拉政權，試圖改變拉美力量均衡。
- 國防與軍工利益整合：通過大規模武力部署，活用航母、無人機、軍工產業鏈，鞏固防務承包商與軍政關係，兼顧國防產業與政治支持基地。
南方之矛代表的不只是對販毒的打擊，更是對地緣政治、海權、軍事模式的一種挑戰與試探。川普押上的，是「大代價、高回報、但高風險」的戰略賭注。如果美國不反省目前「昂貴過時」的用兵模式，就可能重蹈過去在越南、阿富汗等地因「高投入、低產出」而疲於奔命的覆轍。
從戰略風險與成本來看，南方之矛應採用加大情報、偵查、經濟制裁與金融追蹤力度，借助廉價無人系統精準執法，同時與地區盟友合作，在國際法框架下強化司法打擊，美國犯的錯將可以成為他國的借鏡。
In order to strike at Cartel de los Soles and stop narcotics from flowing into the United States, Washington has deployed a joint fleet built around the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford and its escort group, amphibious assault ships, and other support and logistics vessels. The task force, carrying 83 aircraft of various types (including F-35s, P-8s, and drones), launched Operation Southern Spear. So far, beyond sinking a number of small speedboats, it has also clearly taken on the posture of targeting Venezuela and toppling President Nicolás Maduro, evoking a replay of the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada.
According to analysis published by Defense One, many of the craft sunk during Operation Southern Spear were merely old, low-cost speedboats. Even a brand-new 39-foot Flipper-type speedboat costs only about 400,000 U.S. dollars—far less than the daily operating cost of deploying a single aircraft carrier. Moreover, the munitions being used in these strikes often cost several times more per round than a trafficker’s monthly income. In other words, in terms of “inputs versus target value/adversary resources,” the United States is spending vastly more than its opponent in order to swat down relatively cheap, low-cost drug-running platforms. Historically, operations characterized by this sort of “over-investment for underwhelming returns” have repeatedly dragged the U.S. into quagmires where the price paid far exceeds the benefits gained.
The asymmetry and strategic risks of Operation Southern Spear
This campaign has already gone beyond the usual “police/maritime interdiction” logic of counter-narcotics operations and moved closer to full military deployment and even a test of “geopolitical coercion.” When a state uses carriers, nuclear submarines, amphibious ships, air power, and drones to go after a low-resource adversary with no meaningful conventional military strength, it ceases to be a purely law-enforcement action and becomes a military intimidation and decapitation operation.
Such an overwhelmingly one-sided military deployment does, on the one hand, secure U.S. dominance at sea. Yet at the same time it is highly provocative. The presence of such forces alone can shift the local maritime balance of power, triggering increased Venezuelan military alertness, coastal defense build-ups, or asymmetric countermeasures such as speedboat raids, small naval mines, anti-ship weapons, or coastal missile deployments.
Available information shows that Operation Southern Spear is not simply about destroying the channels through which narcotics enter the United States. It is also an attempt to cut off the drug-money revenue stream that sustains the Venezuelan regime, thereby weakening the loyalty and financial backing of senior military and police officials, and undermining the foundations of the government itself. As a whole, the operation looks less like a pure military campaign and more like a form of “hybrid coercion” that fuses semi-military tools with economic and financial pressure.
The Trump administration’s calculus: national security, politics, and power
Given the “bad arithmetic” and the high-risk, high-cost nature of this deployment, why has the Trump administration nonetheless pressed ahead with, and even expanded, Operation Southern Spear? Clearly the objectives go beyond counter-narcotics and law enforcement. The following are several possible motives.
- Binding national security to political legitimacy — reforging a strongman/conservative image
Donald Trump has long linked “illegal immigration, massive inflows of drugs, and urban violence in America’s cities” to immigration and border policy. For him and his supporters, drug smuggling and trafficking are not just crimes; they are “deep, corrosive threats to American society and families.” Thus, by launching Operation Southern Spear under the banner of “protecting the people and preventing the country from being eaten away by drugs,” he can, in the political arena, reinforce his image as “defender of national security” and “guardian of domestic order.”
Within such a framework, even if the operation appears “uneconomical” in purely financial terms, the political and ideological returns—especially in terms of mobilizing voters—may outweigh the costs. In particular, if he is contemplating another run for office or seeking to consolidate influence within his party, this kind of “hardline security” posture can have strong appeal for his base.
At the same time, because he has previously criticized traditional overseas “long wars” and stressed that “America should stop bleeding and paying endlessly,” he can now reframe this operation by arguing that “this is about defending the homeland, striking back at drugs, and protecting our cities,” turning vast expenditures into “necessary sacrifice” and thereby justifying them.
- Elevating counter-narcotics into geopolitics — pressuring Venezuela and reshaping the regional balance
As noted above, Operation Southern Spear may be doing more than hitting traffickers; it is exerting pressure on the Venezuelan regime itself. Trump and his advisers may see this as a geopolitical tool that is “lower-risk and lower-cost” than a full-scale invasion. Even though the financial and military outlays are substantial, the political costs and international risks are still lower than those of a major ground war.
Furthermore, the operation sends a signal to other states in the region—whether in the Caribbean, Latin America, or other fragile countries—that the United States is prepared to intensify coercion against drug flows, narco-trafficking networks, and regimes entangled with the drug trade, up to and including the use of carrier strike groups and air power. This kind of signaling and power projection is itself a strategic instrument and helps to preserve U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere.
- Domestic and alliance dimensions: reshaping military, industrial, and political-alliance interests
From the “cost imposition” perspective highlighted in the first Defense One article, the United States has historically relied on expensive, high-tech military power to force adversaries to shoulder unsustainable defense burdens, ultimately coercing or destabilizing them. For Trump, reviving or amplifying this reliance on costly platforms—carriers, aircraft, drones, advanced weapon systems—also dovetails with his desire to revitalize the U.S. defense industry, solidify ties between the military-industrial complex and government, and generate economic and employment benefits in his political strongholds. In other words, this is not only a military operation; it is also an economic and political maneuver.
Against the backdrop of U.S. domestic politics, electoral calculations, partisan struggles, and interactions with other power centers (Congress, the media, and allies), such a large-scale deployment offers a chance to project “toughness” and “decisive action,” shoring up Trump’s power base, personal prestige, and support among voters.
Contradictions and risks
Even if Trump is willing to gamble for the political, strategic, and industrial interests described above, the path he has chosen carries major structural contradictions and risks when viewed from the standpoint of military realities and long-term sustainability. If a state must deploy resources that are vastly more expensive than those of its opponent to take on grassroots, low-cost, dispersed targets—speedboats, individual traffickers, and small organizations—then over time the burden will become crushing. It will sap its capacity to field naval and air forces in other theaters and may fuel domestic doubts about the efficiency of defense spending.
If the adversary—or potential adversaries—opts for a strategy of “waiting it out + dispersal + asymmetric retaliation,” then no matter how much the United States pours into high-end capabilities, it may never be able to “eradicate” the threat. Drug trafficking and narco-networks are inherently low-cost, highly agile, and dispersed. It is a never-ending cat-and-mouse game that is extraordinarily difficult to win outright.
Moreover, the legal basis and legitimacy of current airstrikes and sinkings are already being questioned. If targets are later shown to be civilians or unarmed persons, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove they were traffickers, serious controversies will arise over compliance with international law and the law of the sea.
Assessing Trump’s true intentions
Taken together, the reasons why Trump persists with Operation Southern Spear—despite the massive financial costs—likely rest on the following logic:
A security-political narrative that casts him as a leader who is “tough on drugs and crime and committed to protecting national security,” which is highly attractive to his core supporters;
The use of counter-narcotics as a geopolitical tool, leveraging sanctions and military pressure in tandem to weaken the Venezuelan regime and reshape the balance of power in Latin America;
The integration of defense and military-industrial interests, using large-scale deployments to keep carriers, drones, and the defense industrial base in play, reinforcing the web of ties between defense contractors and political-military elites while bolstering both the defense sector and his own political support base.
Operation Southern Spear is therefore more than a campaign against drug trafficking; it is also a test and challenge in the domains of geopolitics, sea power, and military doctrine. Trump is wagering on a strategic bet that is “high-cost, potentially high-reward, but also high-risk.” If the United States fails to reassess its current pattern of “costly, outdated” use of force, it may find itself repeating the same mistakes it made in Vietnam and Afghanistan—exhausted by “huge inputs and meager returns.”
From the perspective of strategic risk and cost, Operation Southern Spear should pivot toward intensified intelligence collection, surveillance, economic sanctions, and financial tracking, while relying on inexpensive unmanned systems for precision enforcement. At the same time, Washington should work with regional allies to strengthen judicial action within the framework of international law. The mistakes the United States is making now could serve as a cautionary lesson for other countries.