On September 2, a U.S. military operation targeting a suspected drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean resulted in the deaths of 11 individuals. The aircraft used in the strike, which was disguised as a civilian plane, has sparked controversy and raised questions about the legality of the operation. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who ordered the strike, now faces increasing scrutiny from military experts and lawmakers.
The operation marked a significant moment as it was the first deadly U.S. strike on an alleged narcoterrorist vessel in Caribbean waters. Retired Maj. Gen. Steven J. Lepper, former deputy judge advocate general for the U.S. Air Force, suggested to The New York Times that the tactics may have breached international law, specifically the prohibition of "perfidy." This term refers to acts intended to deceive an adversary, typically involving the misuse of protected status according to the laws of war.
The Pentagon's approach involved using an aircraft without clear combatant markings, which did not visibly carry munitions. This decision has been defended by Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson, who insists that the aircraft used in such missions comply with all relevant laws and standards. Furthermore, the Trump administration has framed these strikes as part of an armed conflict with narcoterrorists, which theoretically permits military action against drug trafficking operations in international waters.
Despite the administration's stance, the legal framework and justification for the use of such tactics continue to be hotly debated. Lee Zeldin, the current EPA Administrator and former U.S. Army instructor on the law of armed conflict, refuted the notion that the aircraft's lack of markings constituted a war crime. Zeldin argued that the restrictions are specific to the misuse of protected symbols like the Red Cross or the United Nations.
Even so, retired Navy Captain Todd Huntley noted that simply transmitting a military tail number may not address the deeper concerns of perfidy. Retired lieutenant colonel JAG officer Geoffrey Cron highlighted the importance of establishing a credible reason for using an unmarked aircraft beyond the apparent tactical advantage of disguising its combatant status.
The repercussions of the September 2 strike have been far-reaching, with at least 35 boat attacks following the operation, which have led to 123 fatalities. Legal experts caution that targeting survivors from the initial attack could potentially be classified as a war crime. This has led to bipartisan calls for greater accountability.
Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, during his testimony before Congress, defended the actions taken during the operation. He confirmed that all individuals aboard the targeted vessels were identified as narco-terrorists eligible for lethal targeting and that his actions were lawful and in accordance with orders from Hegseth.
The debate over the legality and morality of the September 2 operation continues, with no clear resolution in sight. The use of disguised aircraft in military operations remains a contentious issue that challenges international norms and the rules of engagement.
