Bipartisan congressional scrutiny over a newly claimed military op is growing. In turn, US lawmakers are preparing to demand a classified briefing from a Navy admiral to explore the repercussions of a US strike that killed dozens of people. What happened on September 2—an accident involving a ship in the Caribbean Sea. This deployment is the latest in a series of US military actions aimed at fighting drug trafficking in the region and the eastern Pacific Ocean.
Here’s how Pete Hegseth, an architect of this still-unfolding disaster, went to work. Specifically, he authorized Admiral Frank M. Bradley to carry out kinetic strikes against a ship believed to be carrying drugs. Hegseth essentially gave the go-ahead to wind up that attack, killing more than 80 people. This tragic and wholly avoidable incident opened the nation’s eyes to the need for greater transparency and alarmed legislators into action.
Within hours of the strike, Hegseth was on the phone with members of Congress. They raised their concerns about this operation’s legality and ethics. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, especially Democrats, have proposed the actions taken resulted in a war crime. At the same time, Republican members have expressed concern over the legal authority under which the attack on September 2 was conducted.
Donald Trump made this crystal clear when he responded to the controversy. He further alleged that Hegseth informed him that he never signed off on the killing of two men during the raid. Her justification has since provided yet another twist of confusion within an already complicated and incendiary debate.
“Pete said he did not order the death of those two men,” – Donald Trump
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is doing something about it. Specifically, he is calling on Hegseth to release any available video evidence of the strike and testify under oath about what took place. Schumer’s insistence on transparency highlights the growing concern among lawmakers about the potential ramifications of the military’s actions.
Republican Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi promised that his panel’s inquiry would be comprehensive and methodical. He stressed the importance of transparency in knowing exactly what happened during the raid.
“Adm Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made – on the September 2 mission and all others since,” – Pete Hegseth
General Dan Caine engaged with both Republican and Democratic leaders from the Senate and House armed services committees over the weekend to discuss the ongoing investigations. His involvement makes clear the high importance that Congress is placing on this issue.
Hegseth, seemingly unconcerned, stood by his behavior. He asserted that all US operations in the Caribbean today are in full accordance with US and international law. He repeatedly claimed that every step was taken within well known and well established legal parameters. All actions taken had the approval of military and civilian legal advisors, he to Congress.
“Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both US and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict – and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command,” – Pete Hegseth
Here are some specific issues where Hegseth gave straightforward explanations. During his testimony in front of the Appropriations Committee, Karoline Leavitt from Rep. Leavitt pointed out that Bradley led the engagement to eradicate what was considered an imminent threat to national security.
“Secretary Hegseth authorised Adm [Frank M] Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” – Karoline Leavitt
While these investigations proceed, lawmakers on both sides are waiting for answers about not only the operational details of this strike, but its broader implications. They are especially committed to accountability inside military operations and for violations of international law.
Senator John Thune asked his fellow senators to not prejudge the outcome. He urged them all to suspend judgment until further examination could be done.
“I don’t think you want to draw any conclusions or deductions until you have all the facts,” – John Thune