By John Q. Hosedrinker 
After a U.S. strike on three boats in the Pacific Ocean on December 30, the U.S. military abandoned its search efforts for survivors who had jumped into the sea. The Coast Guard called off the search citing a “declining probability of survival,” and a government official confirmed the individuals were presumed dead. These deaths are a part of a larger campaign, with at least 117 civilians killed in 35 attacks since September. Experts and members of Congress have denounced the strikes as potentially illegal extrajudicial killings, as the U.S. has shown a pattern of not assisting survivors and withholding key information regarding the strikes.
Read the original article here
The U.S. is leaving boat strike survivors to drown. It’s a chilling thought, and the more you delve into the situation, the more unsettling it becomes. The idea that a nation, a military, could knowingly allow people to perish at sea, after, presumably, engaging in a strike against their vessel, is almost incomprehensible. This isn’t just a matter of military strategy or international relations; it’s fundamentally about human decency and the values we claim to uphold.
The heart of the matter seems to be a shift in tactics, perhaps in response to criticism of past actions. Before, the reports suggest, there were direct attacks on survivors, extrajudicial killings. Now, instead, it appears the approach has morphed into a policy of inaction, allowing survivors to succumb to the elements. The rationale, or at least the public explanation, revolves around the “declining probability of survival” after a certain amount of time. But is this just an excuse? The article highlights the harsh conditions these survivors faced: nine-foot seas and 40-knot winds. It’s easy to imagine the sheer terror and desperation, and the agonizing deaths.
One of the most troubling aspects is the potential precedent this sets. It sends a message to the world that the lives of those targeted are expendable, and that international laws and conventions are easily disregarded. It’s a dark turn, where the rules of war – already complicated and often violated – are seemingly bent even further. If we aren’t careful, this could have major consequences. Will U.S. soldiers be treated the same way? Will they find themselves in situations where rescue isn’t an option?
There’s a sense of frustration, and rightly so, that this is happening. There’s a feeling of betrayal, as if the very institutions meant to protect and serve have instead become instruments of cruelty. The sarcasm directed at the situation really reveals how disgusted and disappointed people are. It’s a form of expressing the absurdity of it all. “You can’t shoot them anymore. Jeez.” The desperation of the sentiment is palpable. “Well, what do you want them to do?”
What about the legal ramifications? Maritime law is clear: ships are obligated to rescue those in distress at sea. Ignoring this fundamental principle, as the accusations suggest, is not only immoral but also a potential violation of international law. The individuals responsible, from the commanders to the sailors on the scene, could be held accountable. And it’s a question of whether anyone will be held accountable, or if this will be yet another instance where those in power operate above the law.
The situation is deeply troubling, and it’s a stark reminder of the complexities and moral compromises inherent in war. It’s a call for accountability, for a return to the values of humanity, and for a commitment to upholding the laws that govern us all, even in the darkest of times. The hope that America and justice will prevail must be pursued.