By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The White House is now deflecting blame for the killing of survivors from a U.S. military strike in the Caribbean, shifting responsibility from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to Admiral Frank Bradley, who ordered the deaths of survivors. Despite the act being a potential war crime, as defined by the Department of Defense, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt maintains it was legal. The incident involved the destruction of a boat allegedly used for drug smuggling, with President Trump claiming the attack killed “narcoterrorists.” However, there is no evidence of fentanyl being found on the boats, and they were not en route to the U.S.
Read the original article here
White House Throws Admiral Under The Bus In Killing Of Alleged Drug Boat Survivors is the crux of the matter here, and it’s a grim one, highlighting a potential abuse of power and a disregard for the principles that should guide our military. It’s truly a scenario where trust is betrayed and the consequences are devastating.
The core issue seems to be the alleged killing of survivors from a boat suspected of carrying drugs. The narrative suggests a series of events culminating in a deadly strike, and the fallout has clearly become a political hot potato. The most striking element is the apparent attempt to shift blame onto Admiral Bradley, seemingly leaving him to shoulder the responsibility for actions that may have originated higher up the chain of command. This kind of maneuver is a textbook example of how a leader can distance themselves from the consequences of their decisions, leaving loyal subordinates to suffer the repercussions.
The fact that both the President and the Secretary of Defense reportedly claimed ignorance of the events speaks volumes. The implication is that they are attempting to distance themselves from the actions, as if they were unaware of the events that transpired. This is a common tactic when dealing with potentially illegal or unpopular actions, but it also raises serious questions about accountability and leadership. If the people at the top are truly unaware of what’s happening under their command, then that’s a failure of leadership in itself.
The underlying message here is a stark warning to anyone serving in the military: illegal orders should never be followed. The possibility of being used as a scapegoat is very real, especially when an administration is willing to deflect blame. It’s a sobering reminder that obedience, while crucial in military structure, shouldn’t come at the cost of one’s own moral compass or legal obligations. The situation underscores the importance of every service member knowing their rights and responsibilities, and of being prepared to question orders that may be unlawful.
The details are critical. The mention of “kinetic strikes” brings up a fascinating point, a term that might be used to make these attacks sound more clinical, more precise, and perhaps less brutal. If it’s used to sanitize the act, it shows an attempt to control the narrative, which, unfortunately, is a recurring theme. The fact that actual explosions are involved seems to cast doubt on this carefully chosen language.
The resignation of Admiral Alvin Holsey is also interesting. His decision to leave his post before the events unfolded might be interpreted as a strategic move. He may have seen the writing on the wall, understanding the direction things were headed, and choosing to remove himself from a situation that was about to go sideways. This, in itself, speaks volumes.
The article mentions a “code red” scenario. If it was authorized and ordered, then the entire chain of command is implicated in a war crime, meaning multiple murders have been committed, as mentioned earlier. It emphasizes a complete lack of accountability that is a symptom of political games being played with serious events.
The accusations and the potential charges against officers, up and down the chain of command, are a serious matter. The suggestion that all those involved should be held responsible serves as a wake-up call, a reminder that the military is not above the law. The call for prosecution is both appropriate and necessary, sending a message that unlawful acts will not be tolerated. The mention of court-martialing Mark Kelly is a stark reminder of the potential consequences.
The notion that Trump and Hegseth would not protect those who follow unlawful orders is a critical one. The scenario could potentially destroy individuals’ lives and careers. It underscores the urgency of military personnel being well-informed and able to distinguish between lawful and unlawful orders. The military’s integrity hinges on such a distinction.
The possibility of the Admiral using the truth to his defense is a plausible one. This suggests a hope of the truth coming out, and those at the top will be held accountable.
In conclusion, this whole situation is an ugly one, and it serves as a stark warning. The White House, in this scenario, has seemingly thrown an admiral under the bus in the wake of an incident involving alleged drug boat survivors. It emphasizes the importance of following the law and the constitution. The bottom line is that service members must be prepared to resist illegal orders, and those who issue them must be held accountable. The lessons here are clear: know your rights, know your responsibilities, and never blindly follow an order that violates the law.