U.S. Military Leaders Accused of Undermining Law in Caribbean Operation

WASHINGTON – A controversy has erupted regarding a recent U.S. military operation in the Caribbean targeting suspected drug traffickers, with several top Democrats accusing senior Pentagon officials of deliberately ignoring international law to deflect criticism over two separate deadly strikes that occurred last month.

The core of this dispute involves Navy Admiral Frank Bradley, whom critics say is being unfairly blamed for the second attack following an initial strike on September 2nd. According to lawmakers, the administration’s focus on Bradley is a calculated move to obscure responsibility while defending broader aggressive policies championed by figures like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump.

“This administration has a long history of asking people to do things that are reckless or lawless, and then throwing them under the bus,” Jason Crow, D-Colo., who was in the Army Rangers, stated. The congressman added that Bradley’s position is untenable due to perceived unlawful orders from higher-ranking officials, creating an impossible choice between following illegal commands and risking political backlash.

Hegseth authorized the first strike but later acknowledged overseeing it. However, he also reportedly ordered a second attack after survivors were spotted floating in lifeboats – an action directly violating U.S. military law-of-war principles. The administration’s defense of Bradley centers on the argument that eliminating suspects at all costs was necessary to protect national security and prevent future threats.

Critics argue this stance dangerously undermines legal constraints governing military actions worldwide, particularly putting American troops abroad at risk if they encounter similar situations dictated by aggressive political pressures rather than adherence to international norms. Ted Lieu called the alleged order a clear war crime, while Raja Krishnamoorthi warned it could erode the rule of law on which U.S. military operations rely.

The ongoing debate highlights deep concerns about civilian oversight of military actions and raises questions about decision-making processes when political leadership overrides established legal parameters in high-stakes scenarios involving lethal force against non-combatants overseas.