By John Q. Hosedrinker 
AP News reports that a Navy admiral testified before lawmakers, denying a “kill them all” order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth concerning a strike near Venezuela. Although there was no direct order for the second attack, lawmakers remain concerned. Investigations are underway regarding the handling of the military operation and whether it violated the law, with Democrats demanding full video footage and records. Pressure on Hegseth mounts as Republicans pledge a thorough review.
Read the original article here
Navy admiral tells lawmakers there was no “kill all” order in attack that killed drug boat survivors. It’s a scenario that’s unfortunately become all too familiar: a military operation, alleged misconduct, and the inevitable political fallout. In this case, the focus is on an attack near Venezuela, where a strike on a suspected drug boat resulted in the deaths of survivors. The core of the matter, as an admiral has stated to lawmakers, is that there was no direct order to “kill them all.” This is where the narrative begins to get complicated, as it often does in these situations.
The absence of a specific “kill all” command, as we’re being told, doesn’t necessarily mean the actions were justified. Think about it: if the end result is the same – the death of those who had survived the initial strike – then the semantics surrounding the order become almost irrelevant. It boils down to a question of intent and accountability. Was there a deliberate decision to eliminate any potential witnesses or threats, regardless of whether it was explicitly ordered?
The situation is further clouded by the details of the second strike. Even if you were to somehow accept the legality of the first attack (which is a big “if”), the second strike, as pointed out, raises serious questions of a war crime. As history books detail, this type of action has been used as examples of war crimes. The killing of those who are incapacitated and posing no further threat is something we rightly condemn when committed by our enemies. To see it potentially happening here is deeply troubling.
The focus of the investigation seems to be on the second strike and the lack of a “kill them all” order. However, the true importance of the inquiry should be on the decision-making process that led to the deaths of the survivors. Why was the second strike even ordered? Who gave the order, and who carried it out? These are crucial questions that need to be answered to get a real grasp on what happened. The fact that the admiral denies a specific order to kill doesn’t absolve anyone from potential wrongdoing.
The fact that an admiral is in front of the lawmakers may suggest he is being set up to be the fall guy. He’s saying he didn’t receive a specific order to eliminate everyone. But the reality is that the end result was the same. The survivors are dead. So, the question remains: was he given an order to eliminate any witnesses, or was this a separate decision? The possibility that someone could try and pin the blame on a lower-ranking officer is a real concern, with potentially devastating consequences for that individual. They will claim they were just “following orders,” even though the order itself might not have been clear.
What we are seeing is the predictable pattern of covering up an incident by arguing over the specific wording of an order. The implication is that since there wasn’t a specific “kill all” instruction, there was no wrongdoing. This attempt to manipulate the narrative to protect those in higher positions of power is not surprising. The fact remains that people were killed who had already survived one attack and were not engaged in combat.
The lack of an explicit order doesn’t change the fact that this situation is disturbing. It doesn’t change the fact that it is murder. It doesn’t change the fact that there will be a cover-up. It’s a tragedy that highlights the complexity of military operations and the high stakes involved. The fact that the initial attack may have been illegal to begin with further complicates matters. The whole situation has the potential to become a quagmire of legal wrangling, bureaucracy, and political maneuvering, making it difficult to find the truth.
The fact that the second strike happened, even without a specific “kill them all” order, raises serious questions about the chain of command, the decision-making process, and the ethical considerations involved. It’s a situation that screams for full transparency, but the more time that passes and the more lawyers that get involved, the more that transparency may be lost. The public deserves to know the full story, not a carefully crafted narrative designed to protect those at the top.