Recently, Admiral Mitch Bradley faced tough scrutiny from lawmakers regarding military actions linked to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and the protocol for handling survivors of counter-narcotics strikes. An initial report from the Washington Post raised eyebrows, claiming Hegseth had instructed his forces to “kill them all,” suggesting a disregard for life. However, Bradley reaffirmed that no such order was given during his briefings. “The Admiral confirmed that there had not been a kill them all order, and that there was not an order to grant no quarter,” stated Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.
This distinction is critical as it shapes the narrative surrounding military engagement. Bradley’s explanation aligned with the position of several Republicans, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, who emphasized the absence of a “kill them all” directive. Still, despite the clarifications, the fallout from the video of the strikes raised serious ethical questions related to military conduct.
Rep. Himes expressed his concern after viewing footage of the September 2 strike, describing it as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.” Two survivors were killed in the aftermath, leading to conflicting reports on their conditions during the incident. “What I saw in that room was two individuals in clear distress, without any means of locomotion with a destroyed vessel,” Himes noted, underscoring the moral implications of targeting individuals who may not pose an active threat.
The divergence in perspectives between Democrats and Republicans on this issue is stark. While Cotton argued that the video depicted survivors attempting to right their vessel and continue their mission, Himes and others questioned whether it’s ever acceptable to strike those who are incapacitated. Sen. Chris Coons similarly remarked on the troubling nature of the footage, implying a need for greater accountability and transparency.
Calls for the release of the full video footage echoed throughout the discussions. Sen. Jack Reed remarked, “I am deeply disturbed by what I saw this morning. The Department of Defense has no choice but to release the complete, unedited footage.” This statement reflects a growing demand for clarity and adherence to the Law of War, which prohibits attacks on those rendered helpless, such as through wounds or shipwreck.
As disputes over strategic decisions and ethical considerations unfold, Rep. Rick Crawford countered the concerns voiced by some Democrats, suggesting that their reactions indicate a lack of familiarity with the harsh realities of military operations. He noted, “Those who appear ‘troubled’ by videos of military strikes on designated terrorists have clearly never seen the Obama-ordered strikes.” This assertion highlights a sentiment among certain lawmakers that previous administrations also conducted lethal operations under similar circumstances, suggesting a double standard in current criticisms.
Yet, the debates surrounding these operations challenge the military’s principles and obligations. Cotton illustrated a contrasting event where individuals in distress were rescued rather than targeted, providing a framework for how the military should ideally manage encounters with noncombatants. “There is another example where survivors actually were shipwrecked and distressed and not trying to continue on their mission, and they were treated as they should be,” he explained.
In the wake of these discussions, Secretary Hegseth’s role remains a focal point. While he claims to have witnessed the first strike in real time, he was not involved in ordering the second attack, which leaves room for debate about command accountability. Bradley has found himself navigating a whirlwind of meetings with various congressional committees, emphasizing the urgent need for clarity on military protocol surrounding encounters with drug traffickers.
As this situation unfolds, the contrasting interpretations within Congress paint a complex picture of American military strategy and ethical conduct. Lawmakers continue to grapple with the implications of using lethal force, particularly against individuals deemed incapacitated. In a charged atmosphere filled with competing narratives, the quest for a unified stance on military ethics remains crucial for both lawmakers and the public.
"*" indicates required fields
