After a week of intense media coverage, the uproar surrounding the U.S. military’s destruction of a drug-trafficking speedboat in international waters on September 2 appears to be subsiding. The controversy ignited following a Washington Post article that has been both a narrative framework and a litmus test for opinions about Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. The article, which suggested Hegseth had directed military commanders to target two survivors clinging to the wreckage, has sparked widespread debate and accusations of a potential “war crime.”
During today’s White House press briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt tackled the issue directly, aiming to shed light on the unfolding story.
As more details come to light, the sequence of events is becoming clearer. According to the Washington Post, the initial missile strike was meant to incapacitate the speedboat. However, the narrative took a dramatic turn when it was reported that two individuals were seen holding onto the remnants of the boat, and a second missile was allegedly launched under Hegseth’s orders.
Leavitt’s remarks, when considered alongside video footage from the September 2 incident, suggest a more nuanced scenario.
Initially, the missile strike failed to sink the speedboat.
A subsequent attack was authorized to complete the mission. The decision was made by the commander on the scene, who acted in accordance with the operational directives provided by Secretary Hegseth.
President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war. With respect to the strikes in question on Sept. 2, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes.
Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.
We’re slowly but surely developing enough information to understand what happened. The Washington Post makes it seem as though the initial missile strike destroyed the boat and, to everyone’s shock and dismay, a couple of drug runners were seen clinging to a bit of wreckage. At that point, Pete Hegseth ordered a second missile to be launched, which bounced off their heads.
When Leavitt’s statement is taken in context with the video of the September 2 strike, a different narrative becomes more logical.
The first missile strike on the drug-running boat didn’t sink it.
A second strike was ordered to finish the job. The commander on the scene made the call, but he made it within the directions he’d received from the Secretary of War.
Leavitt’s answer should put this story to rest in mainstream circles.
As I pointed out in my post on the subject, this is not now, nor has it ever been, about “war crimes.” It has two purposes. The first is to attack Pete Hegseth, who is definitely making changes in the Pentagon that the left sees as a direct threat to their “long march through the instittutions.” The second part is a direct attack on the authority of President Trump to issue orders to the U.S. military. The same claims of illegality that have been aimed at this incident have also been directed at, for example, National Guard deployments.
RedState is your leading source for news and views on administration, politics, culture, and conservatism. If you appreciate our reporting and commentary, please consider becoming a member and supporting our efforts. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
