Adm. Frank 'Mitch' Bradley's involvement in the Venezuela boat strikes

Navy Vice Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley is scheduled to brief top members of the Senate and House Armed Services committees on Thursday regarding his involvement in the Trump administrations contentious September 2 operation targeting a suspected drug vessel near Venezuela. The operation reportedly included a second strike that may have violated U.S. and international law by killing two survivors clinging to the damaged ship.

Bradley may also discuss the role of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in the so-called double-tap incident. According to a report from The Washington Post, Hegseth allegedly instructed Special Operations Command to kill everybody on the vessel before the initial strike, and Bradley subsequently ordered the follow-up strike to carry out Hegseths directive. The revelations have provoked bipartisan concern in Congress, with some lawmakers calling the killing of shipwrecked survivors a potential war crime.

In the aftermath, Hegseth and the White House have sought to shift attention to Bradley, who led the Joint Special Operations Command during the attack. Hegseth told reporters that while he observed the first strike live, he did not personally see survivors due to the fire on the vessel and only learned of the second strike hours later, citing the fog of war.

The administration stated that Bradley had the authority to carry out the strikes. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that Bradley acted within legal bounds to neutralize the threat, denying Hegseth ever gave the reported order to kill everybody on the boat. Hegseth later publicly praised Bradley, calling him an American hero and reaffirming support for his combat decisions, including those on September 2.

President Trump also defended Hegseth, asserting he did not order the deaths of the two men but clarified that he would have opposed striking survivors. Critics, however, argue that Bradley is being scapegoated. Senator Chris Murphy described it as a warning to military commanders about leadership accountability, while analyst Brit Hume characterized the situation as finger-pointing disguised as support.

Bradley, currently heading U.S. Special Operations Command, was promoted from his previous role leading Joint Special Operations Command shortly after the strike. A Naval Academy graduate and Navy SEAL since 1992, he spent 16 years with SEAL Team Six and participated in the initial U.S. deployments to Afghanistan after September 11. Bradley has a masters degree in physics and a provisional patent for his research.

Initial reports indicated survivors existed after the first strike, but they were killed in a subsequent follow-up attack. Monitoring the operation from Fort Bragg, Hegseth reportedly considered the survivors legitimate targets due to the potential to contact other traffickers. The Washington Post cited sources suggesting public release of the footage would provoke outrage.

The New York Times corroborated aspects of the attack, noting Hegseths directive targeted the vessel and its alleged cargo, but did not explicitly instruct what to do if initial strikes failed to kill all aboard. According to the Times, Bradley ordered the initial and follow-up strikes, while Hegseth gave no further instructions during the operation. The legality of the campaign has been widely questioned, as prior administrations used law enforcement approaches rather than lethal force against suspected traffickers.

Legal experts argue that U.S. forces targeting civilians or non-combatants violates international law. Representative Jim Himes called the justification for the strikes ludicrous, and retired Army lawyer Geoffrey Corn stated it constituted a severe breach of the laws of war. Targeting shipwreck survivors is seen as an even clearer violation. Pentagon guidelines require service members to refuse illegal orders, such as firing on those unable to fight.

Republican Representative Don Bacon and former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall also criticized the operation, highlighting that wounded survivors in the water posed no immediate threat. Kendall described the attack as a textbook example of a war crime, noting that the administrations rationale lacked legal precedent and disregarded established rules of armed conflict.

Author: Sophia Brooks