Recent U.S. military strikes against Caribbean drug boats tied to narcotrafficking. Yet these actions have triggered the mother of all strawman arguments—that they are illegal and involve too much intelligence. Two additional well-placed sources managed to independently corroborate that the U.S. military, not the CIA, has been conducting sinkings with drones and manned aircraft. At the same time, President Donald Trump has openly admitted to the agency’s secret activities in Venezuela.
As of September 3, Trump has reportedly ordered the first strike against a speedboat. He posted an incredible short video of the operation on Twitter. He claimed that the targeted vessel was “loaded up with mostly Fentanyl, and other illegal narcotics,” asserting that these efforts are crucial to combating drug-related issues in the United States.
This announcement coincided with an unprecedented surge of military interventions across the Caribbean. U.S. military drones and manned aircraft have fired missiles in these operations. Harold Koh, a Yale professor of international law and former State Department official under President Obama, criticized the legality of such strikes. He stated, “There is no authority for the president to commit summary execution on the high seas, especially when there is a capture option which they have been using until now.”
In light of these developments, Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, revealed via X that the commander of Southcom would be stepping down. This new leadership change brings an opportunity to ask what the future direction of U.S. operations in the region should be.
As Mark Lowenthal, former assistant director of the CIA for analysis, explained here, the kinds of intelligence that preceded these operations. He added when they collect intelligence but that doesn’t mean they have physical evidence. He remarked, “We have intelligence. It is not the same thing as evidence. It’s a different milieu. Sometimes it’s cold hard fact and sometimes lots less.” Furthermore, he expressed skepticism regarding the release of any CIA intel related to drug boat targets, stating, “They are going to claim it’s classified and they are not going to release it publicly. They may be right. They have all sorts of exemptions in law.”
The Pentagon has been reticent to disclose just what it’s doing. A spokesperson stated, “Due to operational security, we do not talk about matters of intelligence.” This lack of transparency is eroding the very trust critics call for by screaming for accountability and clarity relating to U.S. military operations overseas.
In response to the criticism, Anna Kelly, spokesperson for the administration defended the strikes by underscoring their mission to combat narcotrafficking. She stated, “All of these decisive strikes have been against designated narcoterrorists bringing deadly poison to our shores, and the President will continue to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice.”
The landscape of public interest journalism is changing quickly. They all emphasize the importance of firsthand accounts from practitioners who know the ins and outs of these operations. This lens, rooted in anti-displacement, is important for understanding the effects of military missions. It further informs us of their legality when carried out under the cover of national security.