Credible reports are emerging on the latest shoot-fish-in-a-barrel episode in the Caribbean, where the force of the U.S. military is brought to bear on “fast boat” drug runners. For the record, I’ve supported these operations in the past.
A whistle-blower connected to the mission revealed that in this particular episode the boat and crew weren’t immediately vaporized. The initial missile strike destroyed the boat and killed nine on board, but the boat didn’t immediately sink. Two people were still alive in the water, wounded. The American military evidently saw from the air that the two men were alive.
The threat posed by this boat to American shores and American people was never imminent but was certainly real. Drugs kill, and they’ve recently killed more people than we’ve lost in highway deaths and gun shootings combined.
But the threat posed by this particular fast boat had ended. The boat was going nowhere.
The military had several options at that point. They could have simply went away. The effect would be to let the wounded go down with the boat or die of their wounds.
They could have rescued the wounded men and put them on trial for drug smuggling. Sure, the men were probably armed, and might have fought their rescuers – an apparent surrender can be an ambush. But that’s always a risk when taking a person prisoner. It’s one of the many risks that servicemen and women sign up for.
The mission leaders chose a third option. They conducted a “second strike” missile attack where they obliterated the already-disabled boat and killed the two wounded men who had survived the first strike.
That second strike was in direct violation of written Pentagon policy prohibiting attacks on shipwrecks where combatants on board are unable to fight.
I’ve defended these shooting-fish-in-a-barrel missions on the grounds that the law affords the President wide latitude in matters of foreign affairs. President Obama ordered lethal drone attacks on terrorists on foreign soil – including some who were American citizens, and I supported that as well.
A President does not need a Declaration of War from Congress to take action to defend American interests. The last time Congress issued a Declaration of War was 1942. (Both wars against Iraq were approved by Congressional “resolutions” that fell short of a Declaration of War.)
So, the absence of express Congressional approval for these actions does not especially bother me. What bothers me is the circumstances of this particular episode.
Put aside the fact that there’s been no judicial adjudication that these drug runners are, in fact, drug runners. Threats to American shores do not always lend themselves to due process determinations by old judges in walnut paneled courtrooms a thousand miles away.
And put aside the fact that these drug runners who are being bombed seldom get to America – they go to intermediate points such as Mexico or Caribbean islands where their drug cargo is transferred to some other drug runner.
And put side the fact that while these drug runners are certainly wrongdoers who deserve punishment, they are hardly drug kingpins like El Chapo with nine-figure bank accounts. They’re typically impoverished fishermen or peasants looking for a five-figure payday.
And put aside the fact that none of these fast boats has put up a fight. The crew are undoubtedly armed, but their arms are in the form of handguns, not surface-to-air missiles to deal with an F-16.
Put all that aside. It’s a close call, but I’m still willing to support the President in blowing up the drug runner boats. That’s not because I dismiss the gravity of doing so; in fact, it’s a matter of great gravity. Rather, it’s because I weigh that against the gravity of America’s drug problem.
Constitutional scholars are mixed on the legality of these fast-boat bombings.
But whatever the legality of a fast-boat bombing, making a second strike to kill the helpless wounded survivors – flailing in the water as they cling to their sinking boat – crosses a line. It’s in violation of Pentagon written policy, it’s a violation of the rules of war, it’s barbaric, it’s murder.
The President was understandably not aware of the situation in real time – he has other things on his agenda – but he said afterward that he would not have ordered the second strike.
The second strike was evidently on the direct orders of either the Secretary of War or an admiral in charge of the mission. Both were reportedly watching the mission live. The Secretary of War says the second strike was with his authority but he was out of the room when the order was given.
Either the admiral or the Secretary of War, or both, should resign or, in the case of the admiral, be court martialed. This cannot stand. It’s wrong.
the Aspen beat 
We need to support our troops, the leadership and the president. We don’t need to support the progressive attack on these men and women!
OK, but I draw the line at bombing wounded, defenseless civilians clinging to a blown-up boat.
How the hell defenseless are they when they knowingly got on a drug boat with arms. This might be murdered but I’m racking my brain and still cannot give a s***
Sorry Glenn, even if I’m in the minority, I disagree. “Typically impoverished fishermen or peasants looking for a five-figure payday”, even if they’re the middlemen in this exercise, are still drug runners, are still enriching their lives at the expense of innocent people and their families. Did they know that the US was finally gunning for them (excuse the pun) and decided it was worth the risk? How long have they been doing it? How many people have they indirectly killed?
So you think they should be summarily executed?
What if our troops had boarded the boat, and found a wounded person alive. Should they just shoot him in the head, then and there?
We didn’t even do that to Nazi concentration camp guards. Even Adolf Eichmann got a trial.
Maybe it wasn’t exactly as rumored. The NYTimes has a different take. Not that I always believe them either, but they do have new leadership.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/12/02/new-york-times-confirms-hegseth-did-not-order-second-strike-on-venezuela-narcoterrorist-boat/
Didn’t know narco-terrorists were a signatory to the Geneva Convention. How would you feel about this incident if the boat was on the way here with mustard gas or a neuro or blood agent?
Oh Glenn. you forgot about the 48 hour rule for stories, particularly when they are juicy anti-Trump tales that are so outrageous and so emotional. Strafing the water to kill defenseless people clinging to pieces of wood! It’s horrible. I think I spotted Jack and Rose clinging to a door before the brutal American soldiers riddled them with bullets.
Except, it turns out this isn’t true. Nothing of the sort happened. It was a fake news story designed to generate outrage. Perhaps you could write a follow up on how good hearted people like you can be take in by propaganda pieces like this.
From Jonathan Turley: “The NY Times is now joining others in debunking the Washington Post claim that Secretary Hegseth ordered the killing of survivors of an attack in September on a drug boat. Days of coverage over an alleged war crime appear to be based on a false account…”
It’s not accurate to say “Nothing of the sort happened” and Mr. Turley says no such thing.
What is in dispute is whether Hegseth said “Kill them all.”
The basic story — that there was a missile strike that wrecked the boat, two survivors were observed, and there was then a second missile strike that killed them — is utterly undisputed, even by Hegseth.
I replied on your follow up post, but I do want to reply here as well. We need our best opinion writers, like you, to be clear-eyed about the lying press and what they are trying to do to all of us.
“ABC News has now confirmed what the Pentagon already knew: the two alleged survivors of the cartel-linked cocaine boat were NOT surrendering, shipwrecked victims, they climbed back onto the vessel, attempted to recover narcotics, and maintained communication with other smuggling assets.”
How much time elapsed between the missile shots? 5 seconds, 10? Were the two missiles shot from different platforms? Was one platform aware of the other? Was the shooter the brother or sister of someone who was killed by cocaine laced with fentanyl? Does the Admiral have a son who goes to parties and may be exposed to drugs? Were the drugs bound to Europe or the US?
None of that matters one iota. We asked Trump to stop the flow of drugs into the US and neither you or most others volunteered to stop the drugs or to tell Trump how he was allowed to stop the drugs. I know it seems cruel but so is cutting the fingers off the hands, while alive, of SA Enrigue “Kiki” Camarena and then killing him.
If it were me, still in uniform, and I had to choose between rendering aid to a drug smuggler, cartel member or just your run of the mill drug dealer or standing off at a safe distance and ending the problem I would also opt for the second choice.
As I recall, the first shot stopped, but did not sink, the drug boat. The second shot was required to complete the mission.
It’s hard to believe that some idiot would use an extremely expensive missile to take a potshot at one or two floundering sailors, but leave a boat full of narcotics floating and available for recovery.
Common sense says the second shot was to finish off the boat, and the one or two sailors were killed under the same conditions as the nine or ten from the first shot were killed.
I find Glenn’s moral outrage here more than a bit overwrought.
Just a bit. 😉