War Secretary Pete Hegseth made waves on Saturday as he took aim at the Washington Post during his keynote address at the Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California. The controversy erupted while he was discussing U.S. military strikes against Venezuelan drug boats in the Caribbean Sea. Hegseth didn’t hold back when asked by Fox News Correspondent Lucas Tomlinson whether he had ever ordered troops to kill everyone aboard these vessels.
“Is anybody here from The Washington Post? I don’t know where you get your sources, but they suck. Of course not,” Hegseth declared emphatically. His argument centered on the absurdity of the claim that he would utter such a directive, calling it “patently ridiculous.” In his view, the portrayal of his decision-making process was cartoonish and misleading. “You don’t walk in and say, ‘Kill them all!’” he insisted, asserting that anyone aware of military protocol would understand the intricacies involved in such operations, which require adherence to strict criteria and thorough vetting by military and legal advisors.
Hegseth emphasized that every action taken in the field is not only thoughtful but is executed with extensive planning and approval from various levels of command. He highlighted the complexity of military operations, saying, “there’s a very defined process.” This line of thinking suggests that critics could benefit from a better understanding of the realities faced by military personnel. He stressed that, after an internal review, there might be plans to release a full video of the first strike on September 2, potentially clarifying the context of the operation amid heightened scrutiny.
The fallout from these operations has sparked heated debate, particularly among Democrats and media critics. Hegseth’s strikes on what he termed terrorist drug boats have drawn accusations of being “illegal” from some lawmakers. A recent article from the Washington Post alleged that he had ordered troops to “kill everybody” on board and even a second strike to eliminate any survivors clinging to a burning ship. Representative Seth Moulton (D-MA) went as far as to proclaim that Americans could face prosecution for what he labeled “blatantly illegal” actions.
The scope of this reporting ignited further outrage, with Hegseth responding directly to what he characterized as “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting.” He stood firm in defending the legality of United States operations, affirming that they comply with both U.S. and international law, and are in line with the law of armed conflict. “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful,” he stated, bolstered by the support of military and civilian legal experts throughout the chain of command.
Despite the controversies swirling around him, U.S. military actions in the Caribbean continued unabated. This includes the execution of a 22nd strike just days later, resulting in substantial casualties among foreign terrorist narcotic traffickers. The unwavering execution of such operations draws differing opinions from various political corners, illustrating the contentious atmosphere in which military actions are often debated.
Hegseth’s comments represent a broader clash between military operations and media narratives. As he continues to face criticism, his insistence on the legality and necessity of these strikes reflects a commitment to the objectives at hand, regardless of the political firestorm that accompanies them. In an era where actions are scrutinized through multiple lenses, Hegseth’s forthrightness challenges the narratives crafted around military engagement, seeking to reframe the conversation back to the realities of warfare and national security.
"*" indicates required fields
