By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended a follow-up strike on a suspected drug-carrying boat in the Caribbean Sea, citing the “fog of war” and claiming he didn’t see any survivors. The initial strike, part of a counterdrug campaign in the region, has prompted investigations following reports of a verbal order to “kill everybody” on the boat. President Trump distanced himself from the second strike, stating he “didn’t know anything” about it, while the Pentagon’s own manual indicates that striking survivors is illegal. Navy Vice Adm. Frank Bradley is expected to brief lawmakers on the matter, while the administration maintains he acted within his authority.
Read the original article here
Hegseth cites “fog of war” in defending the follow-on strike in the scrutinized attack on the alleged drug boat. It’s hard to ignore the disconnect between the term and the situation. The phrase “fog of war” usually applies to the chaos and uncertainty of an actual battlefield, where decisions must be made quickly under immense pressure. But the idea that this phrase applies to a situation like this is, to say the least, a stretch.
The core of the issue boils down to the fact that the circumstances simply don’t match the traditional definition of “fog of war.” We’re talking about an incident involving a strike against a vessel, not a full-scale military conflict. The idea of the Secretary of War invoking “fog of war” in a situation where he has time to assess the situation and consult with others raises serious questions about the decision-making process. The criticisms coming from all sides make it clear that the use of this excuse isn’t sitting well with many.
The accusations are very serious. There are allegations of an order to “kill everybody” and reports of the vessel exploding. The stakes here are high, especially considering the counterdrug campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean. It seems like more than 80 people are dead in over 20 strikes. Those numbers alone should make us pause and ask some very serious questions about what has transpired.
Then there are the legal concerns. The Pentagon’s own internal guidelines appear to define the action as a war crime. Attacking survivors is a clear violation. Those with opinions on the matter point out that if the target is unconfirmed, you shouldn’t just blow it up. The fact that the Secretary of War is even raising “fog of war” as a defense highlights the gravity of the situation and the lengths he might be going to avoid accountability.
The lack of an official war declaration only strengthens the arguments against the “fog of war” defense. There’s no ongoing war that makes the phrase relevant in this scenario. What we have instead is the potential for extrajudicial killings, and those are things that need to be investigated and addressed.
The use of “fog of war” to justify the actions seems particularly tone-deaf. It’s a very loaded term. It diminishes the gravity of the events and suggests a lack of understanding of the consequences of the actions taken. The argument loses credibility when considering the other details.
The critics highlight the fact that the events don’t match the classic image of “fog of war.” Instead, what seems apparent is the ability of the Secretary of War to justify his actions and to deflect the blame. This all makes it clear that we need to examine the events more closely. The public deserves transparency, and those responsible need to be held accountable.
The lack of clarity and the use of a dubious defense only compound the situation. The questions raised are legitimate, and the answers are crucial to ensuring that accountability and justice are upheld.