U.S. Expands Maritime War on Narco-Terrorists Amid Criticism Over Civilian Deaths
The U.S. military’s recent strikes in the Eastern Pacific have intensified the long-standing conflict against drug trafficking, while raising significant concerns regarding civilian casualties. President Donald Trump authorized these operations, with the latest airstrike occurring on October 21, 2025, against a vessel suspected of smuggling drugs. The strike resulted in two deaths, described by officials as “narco-terrorists.” This marked the ninth military action in a growing campaign targeting drug cartels in the region.
In a press conference, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth defended the airstrikes, addressing the contentious issue of civilian deaths. He dismissed concerns for innocent fishermen, stating, “Generally, you don’t see fishing in submarines.” His assurance sought to reinforce confidence in a military strategy that has come under considerable scrutiny, as accusations of collateral damage arise from various quarters.
This campaign has gained a dual character, being framed both as a law enforcement action and as warfare against entities viewed as threats to American society. Hegseth maintains that these operations are essential for disrupting the narcotics trade, assuring the public that, “Narco-terrorists intending to bring poison to our shores will find no safe harbor anywhere in our hemisphere.” However, the ongoing strikes have resulted in a rising death toll—34 lives lost before the latest airstrike—and have fueled concerns about potential overreach.
Critics of the operations voice apprehension over the legal framework underpinning the strikes. The actions are conducted without congressional approval or judicial oversight, prompting calls for accountability. Senator Rand Paul expressed these concerns, asserting, “We can’t just kill indiscriminately because we are not at war.” His remarks highlight the legal and ethical dilemmas associated with such military interventions, framing them as “summary execution” that undermines due process, an essential pillar of justice.
The U.S. military has refrained from providing substantial evidence for each strike, contributing to public mistrust. Reports of empty vessels following strikes leave the question of who exactly is being targeted unresolved. Families of victims, including two fishermen from Trinidad killed earlier in the campaign, have contested the official narrative. Relatives describe them as hard-working individuals rather than members of criminal enterprises, with one saying, “I just want to know why Donald Trump is killing poor people just so.”
This disconnect between the administration’s portrayal of its targets and the experiences shared by affected families raises concerns about the accuracy of intelligence that drives military decisions. While Hegseth insists on the existence of solid evidence against the targets, the lack of transparency surrounding these operations fuels skepticism and demands for accountability.
The strikes are positioned within a broader legal doctrine of “non-international armed conflict,” allowing for military actions against non-state actors. This concept, previously used in contexts like Yemen or Pakistan, has now been extended to operations in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. The implications of this expansion could redefine the parameters of U.S. military engagement moving forward.
As the campaign unfolds, responses from international leaders are mixed. Colombia’s President has alleged that a Colombian national was wrongfully targeted, further complicating diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Latin America. Venezuela also condemned the strikes, calling the U.S. action a farce designed to justify military intervention in the region.
Despite the growing criticism and potential pitfalls, the Trump administration seems steadfast in its approach. Hegseth has asserted, “These strikes will continue, day after day,” indicating an unwavering commitment to this maritime strategy. While this resolve may resonate with some as a commitment to national security, it raises alarms about the long-term ramifications of blurring the lines between military action and law enforcement.
As the number of reported fatalities rises, and with military legal experts warning of internal command stress, the situation calls into question the future of U.S. military policy in addressing drug trafficking. Continual escalation of these strikes, described by analysts as a potential “forever war,” could lead to mission creep that extends beyond the intended scope and effectiveness of such operations.
Amidst these tensions, Hegseth’s refrain, “We will hunt them and kill them,” encapsulates a resolute stance that underscores the administration’s determination to eradicate drug trafficking threats—albeit while navigating a treacherous legal and ethical landscape.
"*" indicates required fields
