US military faces scrutiny after striking suspected drug boat in accordance with its own law of war manual.

The Pentagon's own law of war guidelines categorize attacks on shipwrecked individuals as unlawful. Recent reports indicate that a US drone strike may have targeted survivors of a suspected drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean.

Officials from the White House and the Pentagon have denied claims that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a strike against the survivors. While the Pentagons law of war manual does not enumerate every illegal command, it explicitly forbids targeting shipwrecked personnel. The manual repeatedly emphasizes that combatants who cannot continue fighting are entitled to fundamental protections, using shipwrecked individuals as a primary example. This context has intensified scrutiny on a September 2 counter-narcotics operation in the Caribbean.

During the mission, which Hegseth reportedly observed live, the US military struck a suspected drug-smuggling vessel twice. The first strike appeared to kill nine people onboard, and a subsequent strike reportedly killed the two remaining survivors, according to The Washington Post, citing multiple sources familiar with the operation. Hegseth dismissed the report, which claimed he had ordered the killings, as fake news, stating that all operations in the Caribbean comply with US and international law and have been approved by military and civilian legal advisors.

The White House attributed the decision to carry out the second strike to Admiral Frank Bradley, head of Special Operations Command, rather than Hegseth. Bradley is scheduled to brief Congress behind closed doors. His involvement deviates from the standard procedure, usually overseen by a regional combatant commanderin this case, the head of Southern Command, Admiral Alvin Holsey, who recently retired.

Legal experts note that targeting survivors after a vessel has been disabled would constitute a clear breach of long-standing US military law protecting wounded, incapacitated, or shipwrecked combatants. Retired Army judge advocate general Dan Maurer explained that any trained personnel would recognize such an attack as illegal. Under military law, individuals who are not actively threatening forces, including wounded or shipwrecked persons, cannot be attacked and are, in fact, owed protection and rescue.

The law of war manual emphasizes minimizing unnecessary suffering, including for those injured, sick, or shipwrecked. It aligns with international law, including the Geneva Conventions, which the US helped draft after World War II. Combatants unable to fight must be treated humanely, and those stranded at sea are to be rescued. Individuals engaged in suspected criminal activity, but not combatants in an armed conflict, are considered noncombatants and may only be engaged if they pose an immediate threat.

Typically, maritime drug interdiction is handled by the Coast Guard, with occasional Navy support. Once a vessel is neutralized and no longer threatens personnel, Coast Guard teams focus on rescue or detainment. The Pentagon has labeled suspected drug smugglers as narco-terrorists, and the White House has designated certain drug organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, expanding military authorities. However, Congress has not authorized the use of military force for such operations, leaving the legality of strikes on suspected smugglers in question.

Since September, the US military has conducted numerous strikes on suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, killing over 80 people. In a separate October strike, two suspected smugglers survived and were subsequently returned to their home countries by US forces.

Analysis: Legality and Accountability of US Drone Strikes in the Caribbean

The recent reports of a US drone strike against suspected drug smugglers in the Caribbean have sparked significant legal and ethical concerns. The Pentagon's law of war guidelines, which prohibit attacks on shipwrecked individuals, stand in stark contrast to the allegations surrounding the September 2 operation. While the White House and Pentagon officials deny the specific claim that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the targeting of survivors, legal experts emphasize that such an act would clearly violate established military law. Under the law of war, individuals who can no longer participate in combat—including shipwrecked persons—are entitled to protection and rescue. The killing of survivors, as reported, raises critical questions about the interpretation and application of these laws in counter-narcotics operations.

The involvement of Admiral Frank Bradley in the second strike, rather than the regional commander, further complicates the situation. Standard procedure calls for regional commanders to oversee such operations, which is why Bradley's direct involvement has drawn scrutiny. While the Pentagon insists that all operations were lawfully conducted, the deviation from normal protocols, alongside the ongoing debate over the legal authority for military strikes on suspected drug smugglers, adds to the controversy.

Legal experts, including retired Army judge advocate general Dan Maurer, argue that targeting incapacitated or noncombatant individuals is a clear violation of military law, regardless of the individuals' involvement in criminal activity. The issue here is not the criminal nature of the targets but the fact that they were no longer a threat and thus should have been afforded protections under both US and international law. Such actions could undermine public confidence in the military's adherence to the rule of law, particularly in operations that take place outside recognized combat zones.

With numerous strikes in the region since September, killing over 80 people, this situation represents a critical moment for the US military to assess its tactics and ensure compliance with both national and international standards. The broader implications of these actions will likely be felt as legal challenges and Congressional scrutiny intensify. For now, the Pentagon must demonstrate that its counter-narcotics operations align with the principles of the law of war and the protection of noncombatants, even in the context of broader anti-drug efforts.

Sources:

• A US strike on a suspected drug boat has the military in the hot seat. Its own law of war manual explains why.