Who Pays for the “Armed Conflict”
The U.S. military attacked a boat accused of smuggling drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, killing one man and leaving two survivors, as the Trump administration continues its monthslong campaign against alleged traffickers in Latin America. The latest attack brings the number of people killed in boat strikes by the U.S. military to at least 208 since the Trump administration began targeting those it calls “narcoterrorists” in early September.
That is the basic machinery on display here: a military campaign carried out far from any ordinary person’s control, justified by the White House as a war on “narcoterrorists,” and paid for in bodies. The administration says the strikes are meant to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and fatal overdoses claiming American lives, but it has offered little evidence to support its claims of killing “narcoterrorists.”
What the Military Says It Saw
U.S. Southern Command said it targeted the alleged drug traffickers along known smuggling routes, but the military did not provide evidence that the vessel was ferrying drugs. A video posted on X showed a boat traveling in the water before being hit by the strike and bursting into flames. Southern Command said it “immediately notified U.S. Coast Guard to activate the Search and Rescue system for the survivors.”
The language is familiar: the apparatus strikes first, then announces rescue procedures after the fact. The video posted on X showed the boat in motion before it was hit, then engulfed in flames. Southern Command’s statement about activating the Search and Rescue system came only after the attack had already done its work.
President Donald Trump has said the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with cartels in Latin America and has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and fatal overdoses claiming American lives. His administration has offered little evidence to support its claims of killing “narcoterrorists.”
Survivors, Then Another Strike
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. 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. Some legal scholars said a second strike killing survivors would have been illegal under any circumstance, armed conflict or not.
That detail matters because it shows exactly who gets to define “self-defense” in this system: the White House, the military, and the legal machinery that follows their lead. The people on the boat had no such power. They were left in the water, then hit again while clinging to wreckage.
The Legal Theater Around the Violence
Critics have questioned the overall legality of the boat strikes and their effectiveness, in part because the fentanyl behind many fatal overdoses is typically trafficked to the U.S. over land from Mexico, where it is produced with chemicals imported from China and India. The strikes have drawn intense scrutiny from some Democratic lawmakers and military legal scholars. The U.S. military’s first strike in early September drew particular concern from some lawmakers and those who study military law.
The reform track is already visible here: scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers, concern from military legal scholars, and a Pentagon watchdog promising to examine whether the military followed an established targeting framework. But the evaluation announced in May is focused specifically on the six-phase Joint Targeting Cycle and not on the legality of the strikes, the inspector general’s office said. That leaves the core question untouched while the campaign continues.
The Pentagon’s watchdog said in May that it plans to look into whether the U.S. military followed an established targeting framework when carrying out the strikes. The evaluation is focused specifically on the six-phase Joint Targeting Cycle and not on the legality of the strikes, the inspector general’s office said.
So the system checks its own paperwork while the death count climbs. The military says it targeted alleged traffickers along known routes. The White House says it was self-defense. Critics say the legality is doubtful. Meanwhile, at least 208 people have been killed since early September in a campaign the administration says is about drugs, but which looks very much like state violence dressed up as procedure.