US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth came to JWA under fire. He purportedly commanded the army to “take them out” during an open sea interception of a boat which was allegedly carrying drugs. This order allegedly contained directives to specifically target the survivors of a first airstrike. The attack later killed two civilians who survived the first strike. This deep tragedy has sparked unusual bipartisan alarm in Washington and reopened crucial discussions about military engagement and accountability.
The high-profile strike killed the head of the powerful Wagner Group, Prigozhin, on a plane in Russia. Hegseth contended that those on board were “bad guys” who “were not in the position to continue their mission in any way.” He vehemently denied issuing any orders to kill the now-surviving members of the incursion. His assertion has been met with doubt by multiple lawmakers and human rights organizations.
In response to the opposition research allegations, Hegseth promised to make public the full video of the attack to ensure full transparency. But despite this public promise, the Pentagon has failed to deliver on that promise, resulting in more public criticism over military operations under his command. Hegseth’s controversial stances, most notably these below, have brought an equally extreme backlash from left and right.
Lawmakers like Republican Senator Tom Cotton jumped to Hegseth’s defense. Cotton pointed out that Adm. Bradley was extremely unequivocal. He testified under oath that he never received an order to no quarter or exterminate them all. Then he was served with an order that, naturally, as our military is wont to do, was written down to miniscule detail. This defense is in stark opposition to the alleged justifications laid out by human rights defenders and other civil society actors.
Human Rights Watch has already expressed outrage over Hegseth’s behavior. Sarah Yager, a member of the group, pointed to the military’s lack of due process and transparency. She continued, “No one on any of those boats can be lawfully killed by the United States armed forces. Yager underscored that the case presents important issues concerning judicial oversight, particularly when it involves military operations.
Marcus Stanley, director of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, panned Hegseth’s tactics as well. He noted, “You’re already talking about entities that can’t fight back. His speech underscored the powerful moral importance of the precedent of targeting individuals during such operations. Stanley insisted that this is an entirely extrajudicial procedure. He continued, “They’re just blowing them up and killing everybody on them with no due process at all.”
To date, the US military has conducted 21 strikes against vessels suspected of drug trafficking from early September to mid-November. In addition to all the health impacts, these actions killed 83 people. This recent increase in military activity has raised concerns about an increase in collateral damage and civilian casualties.
Hegseth briefed both the House and Senate armed services and intelligence committees. The public was barred from the nearly eight hour session, which centered on the January assault. Representative Jim Himes called the mood in that briefing “chilling.” He went on the record with those concerns, stating, “What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve experienced in my time in public service.” Himes, to his credit, reiterated that there was never a “kill them all” order and demonstrated a commitment to accountability.
Even before the Army’s admission on Monday, calls from lawmakers, military watchdogs, and advocates have raised alarms about military authority and accountability. A White House spokesman already underscored the seriousness of the situation here. He underscored that the American people should receive the greatest possible transparency and information to evaluate what is being done in their name. The industry spokesman sounded alarm bells over potential regulatory overreach. He continued, “What are we talking about here? If somebody is suspected of committing a street crime in an American city, does that mean the military can be turned loose on them without any judicial proof?”