The facts are still emerging through the fog of war (or is it the fog of law enforcement, or the fog of antiterrorism?). Sometimes people (including myself) draw conclusions on the basis of incomplete information, so let’s start with what’s really known.
Our military launched another missile attack on a drug-smuggling fast boat. The boat burst into flames and was dead in the water but did not immediately sink. On-scene surveillance showed that not all of the 11 crew members were killed. One or two men were seen moving in the water.
Unlike the footage of other fast boats being attacked by missiles, this footage has not been publicly released, but the facts in the preceding paragraph are undisputed.
A second missile strike was then ordered. It obliterated the wreckage of the boat and killed the two remaining survivors. That, too, is undisputed.
The mission was observed in real time by the Admiral in charge as well as his boss, the Secretary of War, in a room at the Pentagon. Both men saw the first missile strike.
The Secretary of War reports that he then left the room to attend another meeting. The second strike was then ordered by the Admiral who evidently believed he had authority from the Secretary of War.
Here’s where it gets foggy. One report says that the Secretary of War instructed the military in advance to “kill them all.” He denies saying that.
He did say afterward that he supports the Admiral’s ordering of the second strike, and went on to proclaim “the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.”
What’s the President say? When asked about the appropriateness of the second strike, he said:
“[The Secretary of War] said he didn’t do it, so I don’t have to make that decision.”
In the hurley-burley of the impromptu press conference aboard Air Force One, it’s not clear what, exactly, the Secretary told the President he “didn’t do.” It can’t be that he told the President they “didn’t do” a second strike, because they clearly did. Maybe what the Secretary said he “didn’t do” was to be the one who ordered it, since he was no longer in the room, or maybe what he told the President he “didn’t do” was to order the military to “kill them all.”
Apart from that ambiguity – something to be hashed out between the Secretary and the President – the most important words from the President about the second strike were the following:
“I wouldn’t have wanted that – a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine.”
Personally, I’ve defended the policy of bombing the drug smuggling fast boats. It’s a close call, legally, but the drug problem in America is very serious.
In the legal profession, there’s an expression: Hard facts make for hard law. America’s drug problem is a hard fact, and dealing with it requires some hard laws.
For that reason, I reluctantly support bombing fast boats loaded with lethal drugs in order to stop the drugs from entering America. I admit, it seems they could instead be simply followed and apprehended when they reach our shores, but Presidents get a lot of latitude in these matters of foreign affairs. I’ll give him that latitude in view of the seriousness of our drug problems.
But launching a second missile after the first missile wrecked and incinerated the boat, just for the purpose of killing the helpless survivors of the first missile, is a quite different thing.
Suppose the military had boarded the boat and found the two wounded survivors, rather than firing a second missile. Does anyone seriously contend they would be justified in executing them on the spot with a gun to their heads? If not, then why are they justified in executing them with a second missile launched from a different spot?
I think the President was right. The first strike was enough to stop the boat. There was no need to launch a second missile to kill the two wounded survivors in the water. Those killings were not necessary to the mission.
There’s a word for unnecessary killings. It’s on the tip of my tongue . . .
Like the President, I have little sympathy for drug runners, and if they die in the course of their criminality we shed no tears. But the President also knows that to murder them as they flail wounded in the water, well, that would make him worse than them. No thanks.
the Aspen beat 
I think it would have been fine to let them swim, but the boat, being DIW and not under command, was a hazard to navigation.
Moreover if the enemy vessel is still afloat, it is perfectly permissible to fire a second time to sink it. As for crew in the water, well, war is hell.
If a building or vehicle is still standing in some form after an initial strike, the long-standing US (and other countries) military policy is to perform a 2nd strike and “make the rubble bounce”. If the intent was to eliminate the boat and its cargo, that’s fine. It’s not like the Japanese strafing sailors and civilians struggling in the water. No one would have blinked if it were a truck that got hit a 2nd time, even if the Taliban were still near it.
Glenn, you’re missing the point. We are engaged in an actual war. Drug deaths in the US exeeded 390,000 over the past 5 years. That is nearly as many casualties as the we suffered in WWII.
Nearly all these deaths result from Fentanyl, and China is the principle source of Fentanyl precursors. This is intentional. Britain created a drug epidemic in China by importing Opium from Afghanistan and selling it in China. The US opposed this policy and even used military force against Britain, as dramatized in the move “The Sand Pebbles”, but China blames us equally. China is indiscriminantly taking it’s revenge on the US through Fentanyl.
Drug smugglers are terrorists. They do not observe the Geneva Conventions. They do not enjoy, nor observe, the rights of enemy combatants. Barack Obama extrajudicially killed a terrorist who was a 16 year old American citizen in a drone strike. The ACLU challenged the legality of this killing. They lost.
Trump was wrong not to order the killing of all the drug smugglers.
So drug smugglers are terrorists. They are blowing up buildings and killing civilians.
That is one hell of a definition of terrorist. Let’s go one step further. If they are terrorists, then the dealers are terrorists. Why distinguish? Let’s have law enforcement shoot anyone suspected of transporting or selling this vile product. Just walk up to someone and blow his brains out. If that is too hardcore, we can use snipers.
There isn’t any drug trafficking without buyers. Let’s kill them too. That would discourage new users. Problem solved.
I agree, these are terrorist so the rules of war do not apply. The administration needs to say this and all get on the same page.
That’s not so. Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies for the benefit of non-signatories.
Years ago my uncle had a horse that broke its leg stepping in a gopher hole. The horse laid flailing on the ground, injured, suffering. With the revolver he carried at all times, my uncle put the horse out of its flailing and suffering misery.
Another time, a band of criminals were going around the countryside, breaking into homes, raping the women and poisoning the men. My uncle, a WWII vet rigged alarms in the woods surrounding his home to warn of any nocturnal approaches. He placed warning signs at the periphery of his property against trespassing.
In town, he made it known that anyone threatening his family would not be tolerated, all the townsfolk knew what he meant.
Sure enough one night the little alarms jingled and awakened my kin. My uncle, this time with his .30-06 surprised them in the woods and took care of business. One, was injured, writhing in pain on the ground. Again with the revolver my uncle ended his flailing and suffering misery.
The bodies were brought into town for disposal, no one second-guessed my uncle. The townsfolk slept better.
In short order, the night time raids, raping, and poisoning of the innocent country dwellers came to a sudden end like somebody flipped a switch.
Once you make the decision to break humanities civilized social order of peace and goodwill, whatever happens to you is your own fault.
The mission was to sink the boat. Took more than one shot. Mission accomplished.
If president cubage head were still in charge this would not even be news.
So, keep on doing your progressive dance, the people who hate this country will love you.
Somewhere in my video collection I have gun camera footage of a squadron of American B-25’s doing a low-level attack run on a Japanese destroyer. The destroyer is sinking by the stern, and the crew is abandoning ship. The B-25’s are unleashing everything they’ve got against the obviously sinking ship.
New reports (ABC, CBS) say that the survivors were not clinging to the sides of the boat. They were, it is said, climbing on board trying to communicate to other boats in the area to salvage the drugs. The strike was justified if that is true.
Yeah, no. “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.”
Next time, wait 48 hours. Better yet, assume that every word coming out of the media’s reporting is a lie, including the word “the.”
I’m not sure where your quote is from.
It’s apparently undisputed that nine of the 11 crew members were killed instantly, the other two were blown off the boat into the water, and the boat was ablaze.
The notion that they succeeded in climbing back aboard and were trying to save the cargo notwithstanding their condition and the condition of the boat, seems far-fetched.
But not impossible. Let’s see how the facts develop. Significantly, there should be video of this, and the president has indicated that if there is he will release it.