Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley’s briefing to Congress Thursday highlighted a controversial military operation against a Venezuelan drug-running boat. This operation involved a second strike in September that, according to Bradley, was justified despite significant political pushback.
The admiral, who leads operations in the Caribbean, stated he and his legal adviser determined that the two survivors aboard the damaged vessel were still part of the drug smuggling effort. His assertion was supported by the Wall Street Journal, which noted that Bradley believed those survivors were attempting to communicate with other vessels in their network at the time of the second attack. “They were attempting to continue their drug run, making them and the already damaged vessel legitimate targets for another attack,” a defense official remarked, reinforcing the claims made during the closed-door briefing.
The first strike, which set the boat on fire, resulted in the deaths of nine individuals. The military’s targeting process was under scrutiny, particularly regarding the subsequent strike. Critics posited that it could be construed as a violation of warfare principles, particularly the “Law of War Manual” that protects shipwrecked individuals from deliberate harm. Nonetheless, Bradley defended his decision, pointing out that the context included other potential threats in the vicinity, specifically other “enemy” vessels nearby.
Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, backed the operation following the briefing. He called the second strike a “righteous strike” and insisted it was “entirely lawful and needful.” Cotton cited the video evidence he had seen, stating, “I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat — load it with drugs bound for the United States.” He argued that this showed the survivors were still engaged in illicit activities rather than being innocent victims.
On the other hand, Democratic Congressman Jim Himes expressed a starkly different interpretation, arguing that the individuals on that boat were no longer a threat. “Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in the position to continue their mission in any way,” he stated. Himes emphasized the importance of context, suggesting that without it, the incident could appear as an attack on defenseless sailors.
The debate over the legality of the second strike brought the issue of military engagement and the rules of warfare to the forefront. While Cotton and others insisted on the necessity of decisive action against narcoterrorists, critics like Himes raised serious ethical concerns about the use of lethal force against individuals who may already be incapacitated.
Adding to the conversation, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth echoed support for Admiral Bradley, stating, “He made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat.” This reinforced the notion of a firm approach to combatting drug trafficking, with the administration positioning its military actions as essential to safeguarding lives in the United States.
President Trump also weighed in, emphasizing the importance of dismantling drug operations. “I want those boats taken out, and if we have to, we’ll attack on land also…we’re saving hundreds of thousands of lives with those pinpoint attacks,” he asserted. His comments indicate a broader commitment to using military resources in the fight against drug trafficking.
Overall, this incident underscores a deeper divide in views on military engagement, particularly concerning the treatment of combatants and non-combatants in conflict situations. As discussions continue, the balance between national security interests and adherence to international laws governing warfare remains a critical topic of debate.
"*" indicates required fields
