The halls of power echoed with accusation. A recent operation authorized by President Trump and directed by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has ignited a firestorm of controversy, drawing the sharp condemnation of a once-powerful voice of American conservatism: National Review.
The magazine leveled a stunning charge – a “war crime” – stemming from reports of a second airstrike ordered against survivors of an initial attack on suspected Venezuelan narco traffickers. Details emerged alleging that after the first missile strike left individuals clinging to wreckage, a U.S. commander authorized a follow-up strike, resulting in their deaths.
A columnist for National Review argued that even accepting the premise of legitimate targeting, intentionally killing individuals rendered unable to fight constitutes a grave violation of the laws of warfare. The core of the argument rests on the assertion that these individuals, even if involved in illicit activities, were not legitimate combatants engaged in an armed conflict.
The debate centers on the legal and moral boundaries of engaging with suspected criminals operating on the high seas. Critics contend that narcotics trafficking, while illegal, does not equate to an act of war, and therefore doesn’t justify the application of lethal force without explicit congressional authorization.
This isn’t the first time National Review has positioned itself in opposition to the Trump administration. The publication famously published a scathing editorial in 2016, rallying a coalition of dissenting voices in an attempt to derail his presidential candidacy. The current accusations appear to be a continuation of that long-standing resistance.
The allegations raise profound questions about the scope of executive power, the definition of legitimate targets in counter-narcotics operations, and the adherence to international laws governing armed conflict. The unfolding situation promises a complex and contentious debate with far-reaching implications.
