A Vigilante Military

Call me a skeptic from the start: If you wanted to keep criminals from bringing cocaine into the United States, then you’d work with our allies, rather than work alone; you’d secure evidence, rather than destroy it; you’d capture and interrogate suspects, rather than bomb them; and you’d work your way up to the ringleaders of a cartel, and then go after them.

Voila! Real progress in your new war on drugs.

But the Trump administration has chosen to go after supposed drug traffickers from Venezuela exactly the opposite way: The United States works alone; we blow up boats with evidence aboard; we kill suspects; we make no effort to work our way up the criminal chain.

Trump can say the operation off the shores of Venezuela is meant to stop crime, but it’s nothing of the sort. It’s an effort to appeal to emotionally underdeveloped morons who feasted on “Dirty Harry” films in their youth and think it’s cool when vigilantes kill the bad guys.

I don’t feel so lucky.

The strike that’s gotten Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth into hot water is remarkable. The military blew up a boat, killing nine people and leaving two alive. The alleged drug boat was apparently split in two. The two survivors were clinging to the top of a capsized piece of a boat trying to right it. The admiral in charge of the mission decided that the two survivors might radio for help, collect some floating bales of cocaine, and continue their effort to smuggle drugs. Because the two might radio for help, they were not “out of combat” and remained a legitimate target. The admiral ordered the two killed in a follow-up strike.

Hegseth had seemingly left the room by the time the second strike occurred.

Can you find the mistakes in this picture? 

Go ahead; make my day.

First, Hegseth is the clown with the intelligence of a 12-year-old overseeing this operation. A few months back, he tried to prove that he was important by sharing secret messages about a forthcoming strike in Yemen in a Signal chat with other people: “I’m the Secretary of Defense! I know some confidential things, and I’m going to prove that I’m cool! Let me share some secrets with you!”  

The guy with this mindset decides that he doesn’t want to stay in the room to watch the follow-up strike, but instead voluntarily walks off to attend to more important business?

Maybe. 

Second, the admiral and others remaining in the room can’t contact the Secretary when they’re deciding whether to make a follow-up strike. I guess the SecDef doesn’t have either a cell phone or a military aide nearby when he’s in the Pentagon. I sure hope no war starts when Hegseth is in the Pentagon:  

“Where’s the Secretary? It’s an emergency!”

“Damned if I know.”

“Anyone got his phone number?”

“He doesn’t carry a phone.”

“Can we contact him through one of his aides?”

“We don’t have his aides’ phone numbers either.”

And the conversation stops, because the Pentagon was nuked while the military rooted around trying to find the missing Hegseth.

Are you buying it?

But accept it all.

Hegseth has left the room. The remaining folks in the room can’t, or don’t want to, contact Hegseth. The admiral looks at the situation and draws some conclusions: Two guys are clinging to the top of a capsized boat. Admittedly, the two hadn’t committed a “hostile act,” and they hadn’t “attempt[ed] to escape,” which are the actions that the DOD Law of War Manual says might allow targeting them. But the shipwrecked men might try to radio for help (if they have a radio on top of their capsized boat) or otherwise flag down help. The admiral thinks this means the two men are trying to re-enter combat, which justifies killing them.

Really? If I were clinging to the top of a capsized boat in the open ocean, I’d try to radio (or otherwise call for) help too, not because I wanted to get back in the fight, but because I was clinging to the top of a capsized boat in the open ocean, for chrissake! I could use some help. This would make me a legitimate military target?

Finally, for the military to make its case to the American people, the military could release the video of the second strike. Remember: The military voluntarily chose to release the film of the first strike: Hegseth played the video when he bragged about the strike on Fox News, and Trump later also showed the film.

(If you don’t actually show the film to the public, you don’t satisfy the bloodlust of your emotionally underdeveloped vigilante fans.)

It’s thus apparently okay to release the film of the first strike. That film is not secret, does not disclose sources and methods for gathering intelligence, and there’s no other reason to keep it under wraps.

Play it on Fox News.

But when the public asks to see the film of the second strike, all of a sudden that’s off limits? (Or at least it’s still off limits as I’m writing this, on Saturday afternoon. Perhaps the second video will have been released by Monday.)

What possible justification is there for releasing the film of the first strike and then withholding the film of the second?

Unless, maybe, the second film would be unhelpful to the military’s story.

I’m not a military lawyer. I’m out here in the cheap seats, thinking about what we’re being told, what makes sense, and who’s telling the truth.

Don’t let your partisanship cloud your vision.

Just use your own common sense, instead of your bloodlust, and work this out for yourself.

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at [email protected].