By Matt Underwood US commandos killed North Korean civilians in botched 2019 mission, the *New York Times* reports. This is the crux of a story that’s, frankly, pretty disturbing. According to the *Times*, a U.S. Navy SEAL team on a clandestine mission in North Korea encountered a small fishing vessel. The civilians aboard, seemingly harvesting shellfish, were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The American forces opened fire, resulting in the deaths of everyone on the boat. The article, I must add, doesn’t specify the exact number of casualties, which feels like it only adds to the gravity of the situation.
Following this incident, a classified Pentagon review determined the killings were justified under the rules of engagement. Now, that’s where things get particularly unsettling. It’s a familiar refrain, this “justified under the rules of engagement” line. It carries a strong whiff of self-investigation, of the institution closing ranks to protect itself. It’s hard not to feel a sense of outrage imagining the uproar if the roles were reversed. Picture North Korean commandos on American shores, taking out a group of civilians. The response would be, rightfully, immense.
The full *New York Times* article paints a more detailed picture of the mission. The SEALs were there to install a first-of-its-kind surveillance device, aiming to intercept Kim Jong Un’s communications. The team landed at a beach, expecting it to be deserted. Submarines were waiting offshore and mini subs were used to transport the SEALs to shore. However, a civilian fishing boat was spotted, its lights scanning the water, which made the SEALs uneasy, especially considering they had no air support, and, being in North Korea, there was no chance of a quick rescue. The SEALs made a quick decision, one they believed was crucial for their survival, and opened fire, killing the fishermen.
The article highlights the tough realities faced by Special Forces operating behind enemy lines. There is always a risk of exposure. Once the mission was over, the team discovered they had killed a civilian fishing boat crew. The team leader felt they had to make a difficult decision, one that could save their own lives. The lack of backup and the repercussions of the situation played a major role in the team’s decision. This type of scenario is not unheard of. In these situations, a team may be isolated and unable to call for immediate assistance.
There’s a sense of, “You can’t handle the truth” woven into this whole story. It’s a reminder of the things done in the name of national security, the actions taken that might be hidden from the public. The details of the mission, as revealed by the *Times*, are chilling. The fact that they were planting a surveillance device to eavesdrop on North Korean communications underscores the lengths to which governments will go.
The incident also raises questions about responsibility and accountability. To state that an operation during peacetime required killing civilians as part of mission planning, then it’s not justified in the first place. If something like this happened in America, the world would have something to say. And yet, here we are, with the US killing civilians in a foreign country and the response being deemed justified by the rules of engagement. That feels wrong. The question comes up, did the civilians pose an immediate threat? It seems they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Ultimately, this incident is a tragedy. It’s a harsh reminder of the cost of war, even when it’s a covert one. It’s a reminder that in war, often the civilians are the ones who pay the ultimate price. The response, “justified under the rules of engagement,” feels like a way to lessen the individuals’ responsibility. It’s a way to make it all seem okay. But is it?