The Pentagon watchdog will evaluate whether the U.S. military followed its own targeting framework while carrying out attacks on dozens of alleged drug-smuggling boats in Latin American waters that have killed nearly 200 people since early September. The review, announced by the Pentagon inspector general’s office, will examine whether the military stayed inside the six-phase Joint Targeting Cycle as the Trump administration’s campaign of blowing up small boats has continued across the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.
Who Pays for the “War”
The people at the bottom of this operation are the ones in the water. The military campaign has killed at least 193 people in total, according to the base article, and U.S. Southern Command said one person survived the latest attack on May 8. It is not clear whether the Coast Guard found and rescued that survivor, which would raise the death toll. The strikes have persisted since early September, with the administration presenting the killings as part of a war against Latin American drug cartels.
The Pentagon inspector general’s office said in a statement Tuesday that the review was “self-initiated” and that it would not provide a timeline for when it would be completed. That means the machinery of accountability is moving on its own schedule, with no deadline offered to the public while the body count keeps climbing.
What the Watchdog Will and Won’t Touch
The evaluation will focus specifically on the six-phase Joint Targeting Cycle, according to a May 11 letter to Defense Department officials. The phases include a military commander’s intent, target development, analysis, decision, execution and assessment. The review will not probe the legality of the strikes, even though they have drawn intense scrutiny from some Democratic lawmakers and military legal scholars.
That narrow scope leaves the central question of legality outside the frame, while the military’s own process becomes the object of inspection. The administration says the U.S. is at war against the Latin American drug cartels, which it says are responsible for the scourge of fatal drug overdoses plaguing many American communities. The strikes have been justified through that war footing, even as the military has not provided evidence that any of the vessels were carrying drugs.
Instead, the military has repeatedly pointed in social media posts to intelligence confirming the boats were “transiting along known narco-trafficking routes.” That is the language used to turn movement on the sea into a target.
The Strike That Raised the Alarm
The first strike in early September drew particular concern from some lawmakers and those who study military law. Two men on the boat initially survived the attack that killed nine others, and they were clinging to the wreckage when the vessel was struck again, killing them.
Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said in December that the survivors were “basically two shirtless people clinging to the bow of a capsized and inoperable boat, drifting in the water — until the missiles come and kill them.” The White House confirmed the follow-up strike, insisting it was done “in self-defense” to ensure the boat was destroyed and in accordance with the laws of armed conflict.
The administration’s campaign has continued since then, with the latest attack on May 8 and the inspector general’s review announced Tuesday. The facts laid out by the Pentagon, the White House, and lawmakers show a system in which military force is used first, scrutiny comes later, and the people on the receiving end are the ones who absorb the consequences.