The U.S. military has killed at least 193 people in Latin American waters since early September, targeting dozens of alleged drug-smuggling boats without providing evidence that any of the vessels carried drugs. A Pentagon watchdog will now evaluate the military’s internal targeting framework, explicitly avoiding any probe into the legality of these strikes, which have drawn intense scrutiny from some Democratic lawmakers and military legal scholars.
The Pentagon inspector general’s office announced Tuesday that its review was “self-initiated” and would not provide a timeline for completion. The evaluation will focus specifically on the military’s six-phase Joint Targeting Cycle, which includes a commander’s intent, target development, analysis, decision, execution, and assessment, according to a May 11 letter to Defense Department officials.
The Trump administration has framed the campaign as a “war against the Latin American drug cartels,” claiming these cartels are responsible for fatal drug overdoses in American communities. This declaration serves as a pretext for the continued projection of U.S. military power into Latin American waters.
The Cost of Imperial Projection
The administration’s campaign of blowing up small boats in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea has persisted since early September, resulting in at least 193 total deaths. The U.S. military has consistently failed to provide evidence that any of the vessels were carrying drugs, instead repeatedly pointing in social media posts to intelligence confirming they were “transiting along known narco-trafficking routes.”
U.S. Southern Command reported that one person survived the latest attack on May 8, but it remains unclear if the Coast Guard was able to find and rescue this survivor, which would further raise the death toll. The human cost of these operations is borne by those on the targeted vessels, whose lives are extinguished without public accountability for the military’s actions.
The U.S. military’s first strike in early September drew particular concern from lawmakers and military legal scholars. In that incident, two men initially survived the attack that killed nine others, clinging to the wreckage of their vessel. Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, stated in December that these 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 this follow-up strike, asserting it was conducted “in self-defense” to ensure the boat’s destruction and in accordance with the laws of armed conflict.
The State's Limited Scrutiny
The Pentagon watchdog’s evaluation will not address the fundamental legality of these strikes, despite the significant loss of life and the lack of concrete evidence presented by the military. By focusing solely on adherence to an internal targeting framework, the state apparatus effectively manages the system’s contradictions without challenging the underlying policy of military intervention and its deadly consequences. This limited review serves to legitimize the ongoing operations by scrutinizing process rather than purpose or legality, thereby extending the life of a policy that concentrates power and extracts a devastating human toll.