Since early 2025, when Hegseth was confirmed as Secretary of Defense, his time at the Pentagon has been marked by controversy, missteps, and a deeply aggressive posture. Now — as investigations deepen into U.S. airstrikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels off Venezuela — that posture is threatening to become an acute liability for President Trump.
A Pattern of Aggressive Tactics
The most explosive recent allegation centers on a Sept. 2 strike on a suspected drug-running boat, followed by a second missile strike that reportedly killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage. According to the report, Hegseth issued a verbal order to “kill everybody aboard,” leading to widespread condemnation and questions about legality under U.S. and international law.
Since then, the campaign of lethal strikes on similar vessels has reportedly killed dozens — over 80 people across multiple attacks. Yet the administration’s public justification remains unchanged: the targets are labeled “narco-terrorists,” and their destruction is framed as part of a national defense strategy.
Beyond the boat strikes, Hegseth’s tenure has been marked by other contentious behavior: leaking or mishandling classified documents, limiting press access at the Pentagon, and repeatedly invoking “lethality” and aggressive tactics over diplomacy or restraint.
Growing Political Risk — Even Within His Own Party
Until recently, Hegseth managed to navigate through past controversies — including his Senate confirmation by a single tie-breaking vote — with strong support from the most loyal factions of the party.
But the recent boat-strike scandal has changed the calculus: some Republicans are now “demanding answers,” and bipartisan calls for oversight and accountability are echoing across Capitol Hill.
The risk is not just political — it’s legal and moral. Legal scholars argue that the strikes likely violated established laws of armed conflict because the United States is not formally at war with the alleged drug traffickers, and the victims were not in combat at the time of the second strike.
Trump Trying to Distance — But the Damage Is Done
Over the weekend, Trump publicly said he “wouldn’t have wanted” a second strike on survivors, though he voiced “100%” belief in Hegseth’s denial that he ordered it.
Still, Hegseth’s response to the allegations has been far from contrite. On social media, he even posted a mocking image — a parody children’s-book illustration referencing an old cartoon — that appeared to celebrate the violence.
That combination — aggressive orders, questionable legality, and a cavalier public attitude — has shaken what little confidence remained in the Pentagon’s top leadership, even among those previously supportive of Hegseth’s “tough-on-narcos” posture.
What’s at Stake: Credibility, Legal Exposure, and the U.S. Image Abroad
The implications are profound. If the allegations are proven, the strikes could be interpreted as war crimes under international law — a charge that would tarnish not just Hegseth, but the Trump administration as a whole.
Domestically, the scandal threatens to erode confidence in the judgment of national security leadership and raise serious concerns about accountability in the use of lethal force. Some lawmakers have already called for full hearings and for video and audio records of the operations to be released.
Internationally, the strikes risk damaging the United States’ reputation — undermining its claim to uphold human rights and the rule of law, particularly in a region sensitive to abuses during decades of drug-war conflicts.
At this moment, what seemed like a bold and uncompromising anti-narcotics strategy has begun to look like a liability — one that may demand more than a defensive statement from the administration. As investigations proceed, the administration may soon face a reckoning: whether to double down on “lethality,” or pivot toward accountability and restraint.
No comments:
Post a Comment