By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US military conducted strikes on three boats in the eastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in the deaths of eight individuals. These attacks, targeting vessels allegedly involved in drug smuggling and linked to “designated terrorist organizations,” were justified by the US President as an escalation to combat drug trafficking. The strikes are drawing increased scrutiny from lawmakers, especially given the rising death toll and the recent designation of fentanyl as a “weapon of mass destruction,” which has expanded government authority.
Read the original article here
US military says strikes on 3 boats in the eastern Pacific Ocean kills 8. That’s the headline. And just reading those words… it’s hard not to feel a certain… unease. It immediately raises questions, doesn’t it? Like, what exactly happened? Why these boats? Who were these people? And most importantly, is this justified?
The immediate reaction seems to be a mix of shock and outrage. The core of the concern revolves around the idea that this is, plain and simple, murder. The lack of survivors, the absence of any public evidence, and the seemingly arbitrary nature of the strikes all contribute to this feeling. There’s a palpable sense that this action is illegal and immoral, a violation of basic human rights. People are asking, “Are we the bad guys now?” It’s a valid question, especially when such actions are carried out without due process or any real accountability.
The geographic context also adds a layer of confusion. Since the boats were struck in the eastern Pacific, far from any established Venezuelan coastline, questions immediately arise as to where the boats had traveled from. This immediately raises concerns about the justification of such a strike. If Venezuela isn’t involved, then who is? It highlights the lack of transparency and the potential for a dangerous precedent to be set. This lack of transparency and absence of any chance for the accused to defend themselves breeds suspicion and fosters the feeling that something is deeply wrong.
The issue of drug trafficking is, of course, a recurring theme. The implication is that these boats were involved in the illicit drug trade. But even if we accept that as fact, the question remains: is this the right approach? Some people point out that simply destroying boats is unlikely to solve the problem. Drug traffickers will find other routes, other methods. And in the meantime, the action has cost eight lives. It’s a question of proportionality and effectiveness. Is this really the best way to combat drug trafficking? There is an argument made that there’s actually no benefit when comparing drug movement before and after the strike.
Then there’s the discussion on the weaponization of the fentanyl issue. Fentanyl’s destructive force is not disputed but there are discussions that suggest the need for other solutions. The assertion that this is a “weapon of mass destruction” feels inflammatory to some, and the argument becomes whether or not the US is acting in good faith. The implication here is that the rhetoric is being used to justify actions that would otherwise be unacceptable. The focus on supply rather than addressing the root causes of addiction is also called into question, with the sentiment that it is, at best, a short-sighted approach.
There is a sense that the US is acting with impunity, without regard for international law or the basic rules of engagement. The lack of any apparent consequences for the individuals involved is a source of frustration, with calls for accountability and for those responsible to face legal action. There’s a deep-seated distrust of the military and intelligence agencies, a feeling that they operate outside the bounds of law and ethics. The fact that the military is announcing these strikes openly adds to the disbelief, a feeling that there is no attempt at secrecy or cover-up.
There is also the cynicism that the drug trafficking issue is used as a convenient excuse for actions that have other motivations or benefits. The mention of billionaires’ yachts and oil tankers suggest a feeling that the focus on drug trafficking is selective, that the military is not applying its resources equally to all areas of potential crime. The meme of “are we the baddies?” feels like it has fully come to fruition, with most people concluding that yes, they think the U.S. is the “baddie.”
The lack of reaction from the “rules-based Western order” is conspicuous, highlighting a perceived hypocrisy. If China was accused of doing the same thing, there would be outrage, but in this case, there’s silence. This double standard further erodes trust in the international system and fuels the perception that the US operates above the law.
The situation is further complicated by the political context. The discussion includes observations of political figures, the discussion is not entirely focused on the facts, which leads to confusion and skepticism.
The overall sentiment is one of deep concern and condemnation. The strikes are seen as a symptom of a larger problem: a country that seems to be losing its moral compass, where actions are taken without accountability and where the rules of law are selectively applied. It’s a grim picture, painted by a collective sense of frustration, anger, and disillusionment. The fact that the US military is openly announcing these strikes adds to the problem, a feeling that there is no attempt at secrecy or cover-up.