Hegseth is "distancing himself from that second strike," retired Lt. Colonel says

Key Concepts

• Follow-up Strike: A subsequent military action taken after an initial attack.
• Alleged Drug Boat: A vessel suspected of being involved in illegal drug trafficking.
• Fog of War: The confusion and uncertainty that can occur during military operations, making it difficult to make clear decisions.
• Lawful Military Target: An object or person that can be legally attacked during armed conflict.
• Armed Conflict: A state of hostilities between states or between a state and a non-state actor.
• Narco-terrorist Group: A group that engages in both drug trafficking and terrorism.
• Law of War: The body of international law that governs the conduct of armed hostilities.
• Judgment Calls: Decisions made by military personnel in complex and uncertain situations.

Pentagon Scrutiny Over Caribbean Follow-up Strike

The Pentagon is currently facing scrutiny regarding a recently disclosed follow-up strike on a vessel in the Caribbean, identified as an alleged drug boat. Defense Secretary Pete Hegis has publicly distanced himself from the second strike, stating that while he authorized the initial attack, it was Navy Admiral Mitch Bradley who made the real-time decision to execute the subsequent strike. Hegis affirmed his support for Admiral Bradley and all military personnel, emphasizing that President Trump "always has our back" and that commanders making decisions in difficult situations are also supported.

Legal Responsibility and Authorization

Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Korn, Director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University School of Law and former Army senior law of war expert adviser, addressed the legal implications of Secretary Hegis's statement. Korn explained that if Hegis authorized the attack based on the government's assertion of an armed conflict with a narco-terrorist group, then the assumption is that the boat was deemed a lawful military target. In such a scenario, authorizing the attack would be considered appropriate. However, Korn raised significant questions about the legitimacy of functionally claiming a "war" against a criminal gang, which he noted is the government's current position. He acknowledged that Hegis appears to be distancing himself from the decision to launch the second strike, rather than the authorization of the initial attack.

The "Fog of War" and its Implications

Secretary Hegis cited the "fog of war" as a factor in the strikes that occurred on September 2nd. He stated, "I did not personally see survivors, but I stand because the thing was on fire. It was exploded and fire and smoke. You can't see anything. You got digital there. This is called the fog of war. This is what you and the press don't understand."

Lieutenant Colonel Korn reacted to this statement by acknowledging that the "fog of war" is a genuine phenomenon. However, he highlighted that the controversy began with reports indicating that the commander did see survivors clinging to the ship before the decision was made to attack it again. Korn believes that crucial questions need to be posed to the admiral responsible for the second strike. These questions include:

• What was the specific target of the second attack?
• Was the vessel or the crew being targeted?
• If the vessel was the target, why was it so urgent to attack it again when survivors were known to be present?
• Why was an effort not made to rescue the survivors before finishing off the boat?

Korn suggested that Hegis's invocation of the "fog of war" was more likely an attempt to distance himself from the decision to launch the second attack, rather than a direct explanation of the admiral's actions.

Logic of a Second Strike and Urgency

Regarding the logic of a second strike on the vessel, especially if it was already on fire and smoking, Korn stated that if the vessel was no longer a threat, a second strike might not make sense. He reiterated that the vessel was initially attacked because it was deemed a military objective. While he maintains criticism of the government's classification of the situation as a "war," he conceded that if it was a military objective and still afloat, there could be logic in "finishing it off" and sinking it.

The critical issue, according to Korn, is the timing of the second strike. He questioned the urgency of attacking the vessel again at that specific moment, noting that the vessel was not armed, was not actively firing at US assets, and was not attempting to flee. It was "dead in the water." Given the knowledge of survivors clinging to the vessel, Korn emphasized that the paramount question becomes: "Why was it so urgent to attack it again at that moment, knowing that the likely result would be the death of those shipwrecked crew members?"

Conclusion

The summary highlights the Pentagon's current predicament concerning a follow-up strike on an alleged drug boat. Defense Secretary Hegis is attempting to delineate his authorization of the initial attack from the real-time decision-making of Admiral Bradley for the subsequent strike, citing the "fog of war." However, legal expert Jeffrey Korn raises critical questions about the legality of the government's framing of the conflict, the specific targeting in the second strike, and the urgency of the action given the presence of survivors. The core of the controversy lies in the timing and justification of the second strike when survivors were known to be present, potentially leading to their deaths.