Reuters (“Exclusive: In a first, US strike in Caribbean leaves survivors, US official says“):
The U.S. military carried out a new strike on Thursday against a suspected drug vessel in the Caribbean, and in what is believed to be the first such case, there were survivors among the crew, a U.S. official told Reuters.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, did not offer additional details about the incident, which has not been previously reported, except to say that it was not clear that the strike had been designed to leave survivors.
The development raises new questions, including whether the U.S. military rendered aid to the survivors and whether they are now in U.S. military custody, possibly as prisoners of war.
The Pentagon, which has labeled those it has targeted in the strikes as narcoterrorists, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Prior to Thursday’s operation, U.S. military strikes against suspected drug boats off Venezuela killed at least 27 people, raising alarms among some legal experts and Democratic lawmakers, who question whether they adhere to the laws of war.
Videos presented by the Trump administration of previous attacks showed vessels being completely destroyed, and there have been no prior accounts of survivors afterwards.
The Trump administration argues the U.S. is already engaged in a war with narcoterrorist groups from Venezuela, making the strikes legitimate. Trump administration officials say lethal strikes are necessary because traditional efforts to apprehend crew members and seize cargoes have historically failed to stem the flow of narcotics into the U.S.
[…]
On Wednesday, Trump disclosed he had authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela, adding to speculation in Caracas that the United States is attempting to topple Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
In a letter to the United Nations’ 15-member Security Council, seen by Reuters, Venezuela’s U.N. Ambassador Samuel Moncada asked for a U.N. determination that the U.S. strikes off its coast are illegal and to issue a statement backing Venezuela’s sovereignty.
Less than a week ago, the Pentagon announced its counter-narcotics operations in the region would not be led by the Miami-based Southern Command, which oversees U.S. military activities in Latin America.
Instead, the Pentagon said a task force was being created that would be led by II Marine Expeditionary Force, a unit capable of rapid overseas operations that is based at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
That decision came as a surprise to U.S. military-watchers, since a combatant command like Southern Command would normally lead any high-profile operations.
Earlier on Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the admiral who leads U.S. Southern Command will step down at the end of this year, two years ahead of schedule, in a surprise move.
The top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed, called Admiral Alvin Holsey’s unexpected resignation troubling given mounting fears of a potential U.S. confrontation with Venezuela.
“Admiral Holsey’s resignation only deepens my concern that this administration is ignoring the hard-earned lessons of previous U.S. military campaigns and the advice of our most experienced warfighters,” Reed said in a statement.
NYT (“Head of the U.S. Military’s Southern Command Is Stepping Down, Officials Say“):
The military commander overseeing the Pentagon’s escalating attacks against boats in the Caribbean Sea that the Trump administration says are smuggling drugs said on Thursday that he was stepping down.
The officer, Adm. Alvin Holsey, is leaving his job as head of the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees all operations in Central and South America, even as the Pentagon has rapidly built up some 10,000 forces in the region in what it says is a major counterdrug and counterterrorism mission.
It was unclear why Admiral Holsey is suddenly departing, less than a year into what is typically a three-year job, and in the midst of the biggest operation in his 37-year career. But one current and one former U.S. official, both of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters, said that Admiral Holsey had raised concerns about the mission and the attacks on the alleged drug boats.
[…]
“Prior to Trump, I can’t think of a combatant commander who left his or her post early, ever,” said Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, was even more pointed in his criticism.
“At a moment when U.S. forces are building up across the Caribbean and tensions with Venezuela are at a boiling point, the departure of our top military commander in the region sends an alarming signal of instability within the chain of command,” Mr. Reed said in a statement.
[…]
[A] range of specialists in the laws governing the use of force have disputed the Trump administration’s claim that it can lawfully kill people suspected of drug trafficking like enemy troops instead of arresting them for prosecution. As a matter of domestic law, Congress has not authorized any armed conflict.
As a matter of international law, for a nonstate group to qualify as a belligerent in an armed conflict — meaning its members can be targeted for killing based on their status alone, not because of anything they specifically do — it must be an “organized armed group” with a centralized command structure, and engaging in hostilities.
WSJ (“Venezuela Mobilizes Troops and Militias as U.S. Military Looms Offshore“):
Venezuela is moving troops into position on the Caribbean coast and mobilizing what President Nicolás Maduro asserts is a millions-strong militia in a display of defiance against the biggest American military buildup in the Caribbean since the 1980s.
The strongman’s regime has cranked up its propaganda machine. On state television, radio and social media, announcers are telling Venezuelans that the U.S. is a rapacious Nazi-like state that wants to dig its claws into the country’s oil wealth but that the Venezuelan military, the National Bolivarian Armed Forces, are positioning to repel any invasion.
Footage has shown militia members—men and women; often elderly, slightly plump Venezuelans—running obstacle courses, crawling under barbed wire and firing rifles. The Venezuelan armed forces, which military experts say on paper number 125,000 soldiers, are shown marching in formation, with troops mounting armored vehicles and moving boxes of munitions around. The country’s Russian-made jet fighters are featured in footage shooting across the skies.
[…]
The regime’s aggressive posturing obscures the vulnerability of its armed forces against the world’s most powerful military. Experts say the U.S. buildup isn’t enough to support an invasion of Venezuela but would be sufficient to support sustained strikes on boats allegedly carrying drugs to the U.S. or the bombing of targets on Venezuela’s soil, as President Trump has warned.
The U.S. has moved advanced weaponry into the Caribbean and in the skies north of Venezuela, including eight Navy warships, an attack submarine, F-35B jet fighters, P-8 Poseidon spy planes and MQ-9 Reaper drones.
The Pentagon has deployed elite special operations forces, including the Army’s secretive 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, the “Night Stalkers,” a U.S. official said. The unit flies missions for commandos such as the Green Berets, The Navy SEALs and Delta Force and is famous for its involvement in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Large troop-carrying and attack helicopters are part of the mix, with some aircraft conducting training flights fewer than 90 miles from Venezuela, the official said.
The Pentagon also dispatched B-52 bombers on Wednesday near La Orchila, according to flight tracking data, a Venezuelan island where Maduro’s forces carried out drills last month featuring jets, warships and amphibious vehicles. The aircraft carry heavy payloads but also do surveillance.
NPR (“Senators will force a vote to prevent war on Venezuela without approval from Congress“):
Amid a wave of U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean and plans for covert operations in Venezuela, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., is leading a bipartisan effort to force a vote to stop President Trump from unilaterally declaring war on the South American nation.
Kaine, a longtime proponent of Congress’ powers to declare war, filed the resolution late Thursday, a move that will force the Senate to take up the legislation after a 10-day waiting period. Sens. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., co-sponsored the plan.
Kaine said concerns about war in the Latin American region are growing.
“The pace of the announcements, the authorization of covert activities and the military planning makes me think there’s some chance this could be imminent,” Kaine told reporters.
[…]
Last week, Kaine and Schiff forced a Senate vote to limit Trump’s war powers in the Caribbean. While that vote failed 48-51, two Republicans, Paul and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joined Democrats in support.
Paul has been a vocal critic of the new military strikes, saying they set a precedent for the U.S. to shoot first without asking questions.
“The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote,” Paul said in a statement. “We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war.”
Kaine, Paul and Schiff are hoping more Republican members will vote in favor of the new limits. Several Republicans have voted for other war powers and use of military force resolutions led by Kaine in the past.
“I think it’s probably 10 or so [Republicans] who voted yes on at least one of them,” he said. “So we’ll start to work that.”
It remains unclear whether there are enough Republican votes for the measure to succeed.
Kaine said Congress continues to face a “black hole” of information related to action against Venezuela. Lawmakers say the administration still has not shared evidence to justify the boat strikes, which Kaine and others believe are illegal and unconstitutional.
This is all uncharted territory.
Presidents have sent military forces into hostilities without Congressional authorization at least as far back as Thomas Jefferson. And the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force that launched the Global War on Terror has been stretched beyond recognition, with presidents of both parties killing military-age males in far-off lands with impunity for nearly a quarter century.
Still, this feels different.
Whatever the legality of killing people we declare to be “terrorists,” we’ve done so in places where no real alternative existed. There was no way to arrest and try them for their crimes—as we did for the 1993 World Trade Center bombers and Timothy McVeigh. Conversely, the U.S. Coast Guard routinely boards suspected drug vessels, seizes their cargo, and arrests the crew.
Congress should absolutely have a role in deciding whether we are going to engage in sustained hostilities with Venezuela. Alas, there is little hope that the Republican majority will defy Trump on this matter.
The military leadership is in an unenviable position. While there seems to be an overwhelming majority of legal scholars who believe these actions violate both U.S. and international law, the administration has produced an Office of Legal Counsel ruling justifying them. The service Judge Advocates General who were pushing back on the legality of previous administration actions were summarily fired. Ditto many top officers, including the previous Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Those who feel strongly enough can follow Holsey’s lead and retire. But orders of the President are presumed legal and his successor, who will presumably be vetted on this matter before being appointed, will follow them.
