A shadow hangs over recent events in the Caribbean, fueled by allegations that U.S. forces engaged in a devastating follow-up strike against a suspected drug-trafficking vessel, eliminating any survivors. The claim, amplified by some media outlets, points to a direct order – a chilling “kill-everyone” directive – potentially issued by a high-ranking official. If substantiated, this would represent a grave breach of the laws of war.
However, despite the intensity of the accusations, concrete evidence remains elusive. The narrative is built on conflicting anonymous sources, shifting accounts, and a palpable undercurrent of political motivation. From a vantage point steeped in decades of Pentagon experience – conducting investigations, serving on the Army Staff, and attending countless operational briefings – the story unfolding in certain press circles feels fundamentally implausible.
The Washington Post reported that two unnamed officials alleged a specific verbal order from a key figure on September 2nd: “kill-everybody” aboard the vessel, followed by authorization for a second strike when survivors were detected. The headline screamed the accusation. Yet, The New York Times presented a starkly different picture, citing five officials who directly refuted these claims. They stated no such orders were given regarding survivors or subsequent strikes.
These aren’t minor inconsistencies; they represent entirely divergent realities. One suggests a deliberate war crime orchestrated from Washington. The other portrays a lawful maritime interdiction, with any follow-on strike authorized by the operational commander on the ground. Currently, there’s insufficient evidence to support the more alarming claim, only intense political pressure to embrace it.
Having spent 25 years within the Pentagon’s inner workings, including investigative roles for top military leaders, a disturbing truth emerges. I have *never* encountered a senior leader issuing an order remotely resembling those now being reported. Not during wartime, not in crisis, not even in the most confidential settings.
The reason is simple: every leader understands the gravity of lawful orders. Every action is subject to legal review, and targeting decisions undergo rigorous scrutiny. Crucially, the most sensitive life-and-death decisions are made within “The Tank,” a highly secure conference room deep within the Pentagon, inaccessible to most personnel – and certainly to journalists.
The notion that reporters possess accurate, second-by-second accounts of alleged verbal orders issued from within The Tank, relayed through anonymous political sources months later, demands skepticism. This isn’t how the Pentagon operates; it’s how political narratives are constructed.
The public discussion of potential war crimes isn’t genuine oversight; it’s politics. A Senator has publicly suggested the follow-on strike could constitute a war crime, raising the specter of prosecution before any investigation has begun. This risks unjustly portraying American service members as executioners.
This also overlooks the broader legal and operational context. The President, under the Constitution, has inherent authority to defend the nation, including interdicting vessels carrying lethal contraband like fentanyl – a substance responsible for tens of thousands of American deaths annually. These vessels aren’t harmless fishing boats; they are instruments of criminal networks and terrorist organizations.
Continuing down a path where every high-risk operation is treated as a potential atrocity, every ambiguous strike becomes a scandal, and anonymous sources are treated as gospel will cripple America’s ability to act decisively. Commanders will hesitate, lawyers will overrule operators, and adversaries will exploit our indecision.
What America needs now isn’t fury, but facts. Congress and the Pentagon should immediately release full, unredacted intelligence imagery of the strike. They must identify who authorized the second strike and conduct a standard, apolitical investigation within the military chain of command.
Having spent decades in the Pentagon’s highest decision-making rooms, I can confidently state that the media’s portrayal of a secretary issuing unlawful kill orders simply doesn’t align with reality. It reflects politics, and politicizing war-crime allegations is not only unfair – it’s profoundly dangerous.
