On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth revealed that he did not personally witness any survivors following the initial strike on a suspected drug vessel, which was later subjected to a subsequent attack. This admission comes amid growing scrutiny over the legality of military actions against alleged narco-terrorists in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.
The situation has sparked significant controversy, as Hegseth and other administration officials have categorically denied reports suggesting that a follow-up strike was executed on survivors of the initial attack. This alleged directive, if verified, could potentially violate international law, according to legal experts. The White House, however, has defended the legality of these military actions, asserting that the order to eliminate the threat was issued by Admiral Frank Bradley to ensure the complete destruction of the vessel and its occupants.
These military strikes have reportedly resulted in the deaths of over 80 individuals in the targeted regions. As international scrutiny intensifies, questions arise regarding the legal rationale behind the administration's aggressive campaign against Venezuela, particularly in relation to the ongoing drug trafficking issues.
During a recent Cabinet meeting, Hegseth disclosed that he observed the first strike in real-time but departed before learning that Admiral Bradley had authorized the sinking of the boat. When pressed by reporters, Hegseth stated that he did not see any survivors on the burning vessel. He referred to this phenomenon as the “fog of war,” criticizing the media's understanding of the complexities involved in such military operations.
According to Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson, there have been a total of 21 kinetic strikes on suspected drug boats, resulting in 82 fatalities. Wilson emphasized that operations in the SOUTHCOM region are lawful under both U.S. and international law, asserting that all actions comply with the law of armed conflict. She further noted that these operations have received clearance from top military and civilian legal advisors throughout the command hierarchy.
Despite the administration's confidence in the legal justification for these strikes, some lawmakers have expressed concerns about a lack of transparency regarding military operations. Various media reports indicate that the administration has defended its actions by asserting that drug cartels are effectively engaged in an armed conflict with the United States, a claim that has drawn skepticism from several legal experts.
During the Cabinet meeting, Hegseth indicated that the administration plans to continue its offensive against drug vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. “We’ve only just begun striking narco-boats and putting narco-terrorists at the bottom of the ocean,” he stated, signaling a commitment to maintaining pressure on drug trafficking organizations.
The actions taken by the U.S. military against alleged drug vessels have opened a broader discussion about the intersection of national security and international law. As the situation develops, it remains crucial for stakeholders to monitor the legal implications and humanitarian consequences of these military operations.