A political and legal storm is growing over a U.S. naval strike in the Caribbean — one that the White House and Hegseth are now trying to demarcate carefully, even as critics charge the incident may amount to a war crime.
What Happened — and Why It’s Explosive
In a strike on Sept. 2, a U.S. military operation targeted a boat suspected of narcotics trafficking. According to reporting, the boat was initially hit by missiles; after the strike, two survivors were seen clinging to the wreckage.
The controversy deepened after allegations emerged that Hegseth had given a verbal order to “kill everybody aboard,” meaning the follow-up strike targeted survivors — a move critics say blatantly violates norms of armed conflict and international law.
If those allegations are true, they expose not just tactical decisions, but systematic use of lethal force against people no longer engaged in hostilities — a potential war crime under U.S. and international law.
The Distancing Strategy: Hegseth + White House Messaging
In recent public statements, Hegseth has sought to shift responsibility. While expressing support for the strike’s commander — Frank M. Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations — Hegseth has emphasized that operational decisions ultimately rested with Bradley, not him directly.
Simultaneously, the White House has backed Bradley’s authority, asserting the second strike was “well within his authority” and lawful under the laws of armed conflict — without clearly acknowledging Hegseth’s alleged order.
In doing so, the administration appears to be framing the botched follow-up strike as a decision made by the local commander under existing orders — potentially shielding Hegseth from direct legal or political fallout.
The Backlash: Congress, Legal Experts, and International Norms
The reaction has been swift. Multiple congressional committees are launching inquiries, demanding access to drone footage, audio logs, and internal Pentagon communications.
Legal scholars and former defense officials warn that ordering the killing of survivors — people already incapacitated or no longer dangerous — violates longstanding laws of war.
Some lawmakers have already described the alleged order as “murder,” and suggested that those responsible could face prosecution — national or even international.
Broader Implications: Credibility, Oversight and the Human Cost
Beyond legal danger, the episode threatens broader damage: credibility for the U.S. military, trust in government accountability, and U.S. standing in international human-rights and rule-of-law conversations.
If such strikes become the norm — with ambiguous accountability and minimal transparency — it risks normalizing lethal force in situations where law-enforcement, not military, protocols should apply.
Moreover, the human cost — beyond the numbers — may haunt U.S. foreign policy for years, especially in Latin America and among communities affected by U.S. anti-narcotics operations.
In trying to sidestep blame, Hegseth and his allies may be buying time — but with congressional investigations underway and legal experts sounding alarms, this may only be a pause before a far bigger reckoning.
No comments:
Post a Comment