In a recent development, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal to deploy military assets in Grenada has sparked a heated debate, revealing four distinct perspectives within the region. These ‘camps’ reflect varying degrees of support, skepticism, and outright opposition to the initiative, each rooted in different moral, strategic, and practical considerations. Ian Baptiste, a keen observer of the situation, has categorized these responses to provide a clearer understanding of the ongoing discourse. The first camp, labeled ‘Absolutely Yes,’ comprises individuals who fully endorse Trump’s narrative that Venezuela is a narco-state necessitating military intervention. Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar is a prominent advocate of this stance. However, critics argue that this position lacks credibility, as there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that Venezuela is a narco-state, nor has it been demonstrated that non-violent alternatives have been exhausted. The second camp, ‘We Don’t Have a Choice,’ reflects a pragmatic approach. Members of this group believe that Grenada, given the overwhelming power of the U.S., has no viable option but to comply. They suggest leveraging the situation to secure economic benefits, such as reduced tariffs or improved visa access. However, this stance is criticized for sidestepping moral concerns, including the betrayal of Venezuela and potential regional security risks. The third camp, ‘We Don’t Have the Infrastructure,’ takes a more nuanced position. While acknowledging the ulterior motives behind Trump’s request, such as control over Venezuela’s resources, they argue that outright refusal is unwise. Instead, they propose citing a lack of technical capability as a diplomatic way to decline. Critics, however, warn that this approach could backfire, as the U.S. might easily provide the necessary infrastructure. The fourth camp, ‘Absolutely No,’ represents a moral stand. Members of this group, including Baptiste himself, view the issue as a matter of principle rather than practicality. They argue that acquiescing to Trump’s request would betray fundamental values such as sovereignty, peacemaking, and loyalty to allies. Despite potential economic repercussions, they advocate for standing firm on these principles. This multifaceted debate underscores the complex interplay of power, morality, and strategy in international relations, as Grenada navigates a challenging geopolitical landscape.