White House Addresses Hegseth’s Role in Controversial Maritime Strike

The White House has moved to clarify the involvement of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in a controversial maritime incident on September 2, asserting that a senior US Navy commander, not Hegseth, ordered a second round of strikes on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat. This comes amidst intense scrutiny and allegations that the Defense Secretary may have ordered a war crime.

Initial reports, specifically from *The Washington Post*, suggested that a subsequent strike was mandated to neutralize two survivors from the initial engagement, reportedly in compliance with a directive from Secretary Hegseth to ensure “everyone be killed.” These claims sparked widespread condemnation and calls for investigation into the incident, raising serious questions about the rules of engagement and the legality of the operation.

## White House Dispels “Kill Everybody” Order

Responding to the escalating controversy, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed reporters yesterday, emphatically denying that Secretary Hegseth issued an order to “kill everybody.” While confirming Hegseth’s authorization for the “kinetic strikes,” Leavitt underscored that the specific decision-making regarding the engagement’s execution rested with the naval commander on site.

“Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” Leavitt stated. “Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.” This statement aims to shift the direct command responsibility for the contentious second strike to Admiral Bradley, portraying his actions as compliant with established protocols and legal frameworks.

## Legality of the Operation Defended

When pressed by journalists to explain how the strike did not constitute a war crime, Leavitt staunchly defended the military’s actions. She emphasized that the operation was “conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict.” This defense hinges on the assertion that the vessel was engaged outside of sovereign territorial waters and that the actions taken adhered to the principles governing armed conflict, including proportionality and necessity in eliminating a perceived threat.

The incident highlights the complex legal and ethical considerations inherent in maritime interdiction operations, particularly when allegations of excessive force arise. The distinction between authorizing a mission and dictating the specific tactical decisions during combat is a critical point the White House is keen to establish.

## Admiral Bradley to Brief Lawmakers

In a move to provide transparency and context, US Navy Vice Admiral Frank Bradley, who served as the commander of Joint Special Operations Command at the time of the September 2 attack, is scheduled to provide a classified briefing to lawmakers on Thursday. This briefing is expected to offer crucial details and insights into the operational decisions made during the engagement, potentially shedding light on the circumstances that led to the second strike.

Defense Secretary Hegseth has publicly thrown his weight behind Admiral Bradley. In a social media post, Hegseth unequivocally supported the admiral, framing the controversial decisions as those made by the commander, not himself. “Let’s make one thing crystal clear: Admiral 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. America is fortunate to have such men protecting us,” Hegseth wrote, reinforcing the narrative of Bradley’s independent command authority.

## Congressional Probes Initiated

The gravity of the allegations has prompted swift action from Capitol Hill. Both the Senate and House armed services committee chairs have announced the initiation of probes into the incident. These congressional investigations will delve into the chain of command, the intelligence leading to the strike, and the specifics of the engagement. Few details have been publicly disclosed regarding the identity or nature of what was onboard the targeted vessel, leaving many questions unanswered for the ongoing inquiries.

The September 2 incident is part of a broader pattern of US airstrikes targeting alleged drug-trafficking boats since the fall. However, the specific allegations surrounding the second strike and the alleged directive to eliminate survivors have elevated this particular event to a national controversy, prompting calls for accountability and a thorough review of US military conduct in anti-narcotics operations.

Source: The Guardian