Strike on Venezuelan Smuggling Boat Draws Praise, But Also Concerns

The U.S. military strike that destroyed a suspected smuggling boat off Venezuela last week was different from past practice: it was more muscular than law enforcement interdiction, sending a lethal message for deterrence - and some in the region, like Trinidad Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, are very supportive.

But for some inside and outside the Pentagon, it also raises new legal questions. The recent dismissal of Rear Adm. Milton “Jamie” Sands III, head of Naval Special Warfare Command, may have been related to Sands' concern about the legality of impending strikes in the Caribbean, several government officials told The Intercept; other officials warned of a chilling effect in the ranks of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, which may be preventing internal dissent.

According to the Pentagon, the attack last Tuesday killed 11 people aboard a go-fast boat. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that the occupants were engaged in smuggling and were under way for Trinidad and Tobago, a typical short-haul drug route for the Venezuelan cocaine export trade. The destruction of the boat was not a one-off: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth pledged that "it won't stop with just this strike," a message echoed by Rubio. Both asserted that the shipment was for Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan cartel that the Trump administration has designated a foreign terrorist organization.

Critics of the strike have highlighted several factors that stand out. The boat's occupants did not stand trial, nor was it clear if they were given the option to surrender. The alleged offense, drug smuggling, is not punishable by death in the United States for those who are convicted.

Inside the Pentagon and among some former military lawyers, these factors have created unease, and some have quietly questioned whether such a strike might be a crime under the laws of war. "Drug traffickers may be criminals but they aren’t combatants," a high-ranking Pentagon official told The Intercept.

Even if legal, others highlight that it might not be desirable, simply because it sets an example that America's adversaries could follow too.

"The United States argues that its model of courts, directed by evidence that is weighed at trial, sets it apart from authoritarian regimes. A policy of execution at sea would undermine that claim," wrote attorney Annie W. Morgan and submarine officer Lt. Cmdr. James Halsell for USNI Proceedings this week. "If Washington claims the right to strike suspected traffickers abroad, what prevents Russia or China from doing the same? Would the United States accept Beijing launching a missile at a Taiwanese fishing vessel it accuses of 'smuggling' under Chinese law?"

In the meantime, the administration is moving ahead with forceful action in the Caribbean. In addition to the amphib USS Iwo Jima and her escorts, the White House has ordered 10 F-35 fighters to deploy to Puerto Rico to reinforce the task force. "We are going to take on drug cartels wherever they are, wherever they are operating against the interests of the US," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday.