By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recently revealed covert operation, authorized by Donald Trump, involved Navy SEALs infiltrating North Korea to install surveillance equipment aimed at intercepting Kim Jong Un’s communications. During this mission, the SEALs, believing a small boat contained North Korean security forces, fired upon it, resulting in the deaths of two or three civilians who were fishing. The SEALs then attempted to conceal the incident, and military investigations later deemed the operation justified, classifying the findings and keeping them from the public. Furthermore, legal experts have suggested that the Trump administration may have violated federal law by failing to notify relevant congressional committees about the mission.
Read the original article here
Trump Ordered SEALs Into Disastrous Mission on North Korean Soil is a phrase that immediately conjures images of a high-stakes, covert operation gone horribly wrong. The very idea of sending elite US Navy SEALs onto North Korean soil, a nation notoriously isolated and volatile, is inherently risky. When you add to that the reported consequence of civilian deaths, it paints a picture of a mission that was not only ill-conceived but also deeply tragic. This scenario, if true, presents a severe indictment of the decision-making processes at the highest levels of government, particularly given the need for such critical oversight.
The mission itself, reportedly intended to plant an electronic device to intercept Kim Jong Un’s communications, sounds like something out of a spy thriller. The use of mini-subs to infiltrate the North Korean coastline adds another layer of complexity and danger. The core of the problem seems to have been the accidental killing of civilians. Imagine the sheer horror of such a situation, the instant realization of a devastating mistake with irreversible consequences. And then, the subsequent actions taken to cover it up, to bury the evidence, only amplify the gravity of the situation.
The fact that this was carried out under Trump’s direct authorization raises even more serious questions. The need for the President’s personal approval implies a level of risk and sensitivity that should have demanded the utmost caution, the most thorough planning, and the most stringent rules of engagement. Yet, the outcome suggests a breakdown in these crucial areas, as well as the consequences for those involved.
The claim that the operation was deemed justified under the rules of engagement and that the deaths were an “unfortunate occurrence” is deeply troubling. It’s difficult to comprehend how civilian deaths could be considered unavoidable. The fact that those involved were later promoted suggests a disturbing pattern of reward for failure and disregard for the lives of innocent people. It raises questions about accountability and the fundamental principles of military conduct. It seems like a catastrophic failure in judgment from both the individuals on the ground and those responsible for authorizing the mission.
There is also a distinct lack of Congressional oversight. The absence of transparency in such a sensitive operation is extremely concerning. Congress, tasked with overseeing the executive branch, should have been fully informed about this mission. The fact that it was kept secret for years represents a fundamental breach of trust and an undermining of the checks and balances that are vital to a healthy democracy. It is essential that the appropriate Congressional committees are briefed on this matter and given the opportunity to fully investigate what occurred.
The potential ramifications of this mission are significant. The death of North Korean civilians could easily be used as propaganda against the US, furthering the divide between the two nations. The situation has the potential to worsen the already strained relationship between the US and North Korea and create additional instability in the region. The idea of US military personnel being held prisoner by North Korea is a frightening possibility.
Even if the US military was not at fault, it still should have been disclosed to the public. There is no way to fully understand what happened without a full understanding of the circumstances and those affected by the mission. The idea that the mission could be considered justifiable is abhorrent. It seems that the rules of engagement allow for the loss of civilian lives.
The situation becomes even more unsettling when one considers the broader context of the Trump administration. The incident has raised questions about the former president’s judgment, his willingness to take risks, and his respect for the lives of civilians and the established military protocol. The lack of transparency, the apparent lack of accountability, and the subsequent promotions of those involved all contribute to a growing sense of concern. This is a story that deserves intense scrutiny, and the public deserves to have all the facts. The idea of a “Trump-lite” era and the potential for even bolder actions in the future is worrisome.