The recent controversy surrounding U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stems from a second U.S. strike on a Venezuelan vessel suspected of drug smuggling. This strike resulted in the deaths of two survivors already clinging to wreckage from an initial attack.
Hegseth claims he delegated the decision for the second strike to Adm. Frank "Mitch" Bradley. While accountability from the media and Congress is welcome, the debate over whether these individuals should have been killed outright or left to their fate is unsettling.
The core issue transcends the specifics of this incident. It questions Washington's increasingly broad application of lethal force. The concerning trend is the growing transparency and political grandstanding surrounding these actions, not just the violence itself. U.S. strikes, once shrouded in secrecy and restricted to active war zones, are now conducted in international waters and publicized on social media.
This shift signifies a departure from covert operations and high-value target strikes, marking a new era of openly acknowledged extraterritorial actions.
The Normalization of Overt Killings
The danger lies in the normalization of overt and highly publicized killings. The Pentagon, which once concealed such operations, now shares footage on social media.
This transparency, while seemingly inviting accountability, creates a perverse incentive: lethal strikes driven by spectacle. Political theater, intended to project strength or divert attention from policy failures, is replacing strategic threat mitigation.
The Legacy of the War on Terror
The lethal strikes during the global war on terror were not devoid of political motivations. The 9/11 attacks, which resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths, led to a response that caused nearly 7,000 American fatalities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other regions.
Instead of a measured strategy against terrorism, U.S. leaders adopted a zero-tolerance approach, regardless of the cost. This thinking fueled two decades of regime change wars, the torture program, the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, the rise of powerful agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, and a lethal strike framework designed to eliminate potential militants without risking U.S. troops.
The origins of many of the United States' civil liberties crises can be traced back to the excesses of the war on terror. However, those early policies were, at the very least, based on identifiable national security concerns.
Motivations Behind Lethal Strikes
Lethal strikes abroad generally fall into two categories:
- Targeted Strikes: Aimed at a known individual deemed a threat.
- Signature Strikes: Conducted against individuals whose identities may be unknown but who engage in behavior interpreted as threatening.
Both types of strikes are subject to international law. However, the underlying motivations for these strikes are more revealing.
Targeted strikes often involve eliminating a high-value enemy combatant. The rationale can be strategic (removing a key commander) or political (gaining symbolic value). The higher the target's profile, the more political the decision tends to be.
Examples include:
| Incident | Description |
|---|---|
| Israel’s 2024 killing of Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah | A strike intended to cripple the enemy's operations. |
| 2022 Strike in Kabul | The Biden administration's strike that killed al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, meant to weaken the organization. |
| 2019 Killing of Qassem Suleimani | The Trump administration’s killing of Iranian military commander Qassem Suleimani and militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis at the Baghdad airport. |
FAQs
Why is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth under scrutiny?
Hegseth is facing criticism due to a U.S. strike on a Venezuelan vessel suspected of drug smuggling, which resulted in the deaths of survivors from an initial attack. He claims he delegated the decision for the second strike.
How has the U.S. approach to lethal strikes changed?
The U.S. has shifted from covert operations in active war zones to openly acknowledged extraterritorial actions, even publicizing footage of strikes on social media, which raises concerns about political motivations.
What are the potential dangers of normalizing overt killings abroad?
Normalizing overt killings creates a perverse incentive for lethal strikes driven by spectacle and political theater, potentially replacing strategic threat mitigation with actions intended to project strength or divert attention.
You've got the context, now make it count. Capitalize on your understanding of the political landscape and explore new investment opportunities; Discover the top crypto premarket platform Whales Market.