The drama surrounding the drug boat strikes in the Caribbean just took another interesting turn.
Democrats, and some Republicans, have hinted that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth could be charged with war crimes over the operations.
Now, however, Admiral Bradley Frank “Mitch” Bradley is speaking to Congress to give his take on the justification for the strikes.
That is the question everyone is asking right now, and to be honest, I am not sure anyone really knows at this point.
While there are still discussions going on about the initial strikes, the real problem is that a second strike was ordered on Sept. 2 after an initial strike, when two survivors on the alleged drug boat appeared to be hors de combat.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, does not seem to buy into the idea that the strike was self-defense, done to clear the waterway of navigational challenges, or initiated for any of the other reasons given by Hegseth or the administration.
On the video footage of the strike, he stated, "What I saw in that room [was] one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service."
Hegseth may have been spared from taking the brunt of any fallout on the matter, as it is now being reported that Admiral Bradley will address members of Congress regarding his justification for the strike.
Bradley is expected to give yet another excuse, stating that he believed the survivors were trying to complete their drug run; therefore, they were still legal targets.
The latest report claims that the second strike took place about an hour after the initial strike, by which point Hegseth had already stopped watching the feed.
Bradley is claiming that there were other drug boats in the area, and he believed the survivors on the destroyed boat were trying to communicate with them to possibly retrieve any drugs that survived the strike to complete the drug run. Now, if that is the case, this dramatically changes the narrative we have been fed by the media thus far, and it would likely exonerate both Hegseth and Bradley from any wrongdoing.
Hegseth is not quite out of the woods just yet, however, as the Inspector General’s report was just completed on a prior controversy known as Signalgate, and it is less than flattering for Hegseth. The IG found that Hegseth’s communications could have put pilots at risk during the mission that was being discussed in the chat at the time.
The Pentagon chief reportedly refused to be interviewed by the IG’s office, but he did tell the Inspector General that he acted within his rights because he has the power to classify and declassify information as he sees fit.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, blasted Hegseth over the report, stating, "The way he chose to communicate this information put service members at risk. Further, the lack of transparency that Hegseth displayed by refusing to meet with the IG and answer questions is highly concerning. Even after the release of this report, the Secretary refuses to take responsibility for his actions."
Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS), however, defended Hegseth, stating, "It is clear from the reports that the Secretary acted within his authority to communicate the information in question to other cabinet-level officials. It is also clear to me that our senior leaders need more tools available to them to communicate classified information in real time and a variety of environments. I think we have some work to do in providing those tools to our national security leaders."
I still don’t support Hegseth using Signal for the aforementioned chat, but I do agree with Wicker that we need to provide better tools for these officials to use for private communications of this type. All that aside, I will be shocked if Hegseth makes it to 2026 as the secretary of Defense, as Democrats appear quite intent on having him removed, and he is not exactly well-supported on the right side of the aisle.
