Washington: A highly contentious U.S. military operation in the Caribbean is set to come under intense congressional scrutiny this week, as Admiral Frank M. Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, prepares to justify a follow-up strike on survivors of a September 2 attack. According to officials, Bradley will assert that the two individuals who survived the initial strike were still considered lawful targets because the vessel they occupied was suspected of transporting narcotics and continued to pose a threat to regional security.
On September 2, U.S. forces targeted a vessel in the Caribbean that Washington alleged was involved in large-scale drug trafficking. The strike reportedly killed 11 suspected traffickers. Two individuals survived the attack, but subsequent military action struck the same vessel again, a move that has ignited widespread debate over the legality and ethics of targeting survivors. Critics argue that such “double-tap” operations may constitute extrajudicial killings under international law.
The incident has drawn attention to the U.S. government’s increasingly aggressive approach to maritime drug interdiction. Officials maintain that the follow-up strike was conducted because the vessel still contained illicit cargo and posed an ongoing risk, while detractors contend that targeting survivors in such circumstances violates fundamental protections for non-combatants.
Admiral Bradley is expected to explain to lawmakers that the second strike was consistent with U.S. operational policy for dealing with suspected narcotics traffickers, whom the administration has increasingly treated as combatants rather than ordinary criminals. The Pentagon argues that allowing survivors to remain at sea could have enabled them to resume drug trafficking or receive assistance from other criminal networks, presenting a continuing threat to U.S. and regional security interests.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has defended the operation as a decision made in the “fog of war,” emphasizing that commanders on the scene acted based on the intelligence available at the time. Nonetheless, legal analysts and human rights observers have raised serious concerns, asserting that striking survivors in the water or on wreckage may contravene international humanitarian law.
The September strikes are part of a broader campaign targeting suspected narcotics trafficking in the Caribbean and Pacific regions. Since early September, over 20 U.S. military operations have resulted in more than 80 deaths, according to official figures. These operations have prompted calls for enhanced oversight and accountability, particularly regarding the protection of individuals once they are incapacitated or no longer pose an immediate threat.
Lawmakers are expected to question not only the legality of the follow-up strike but also the strategic wisdom of such operations, which risk undermining international norms and fueling diplomatic tensions in the region. Observers warn that if unaddressed, these incidents could set a precedent for future operations where suspected traffickers are treated as combatants without due process.
The congressional briefing is likely to influence U.S. policy on maritime interdictions of suspected traffickers, shaping the rules of engagement for future operations. Human rights advocates stress that clear guidelines are needed to prevent potential abuses and ensure compliance with international law. As the debate unfolds, the world is watching closely how the United States balances counter-narcotics objectives with the legal and moral obligations to protect civilians and uphold the rule of law.