In a heated exchange during a meeting of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on December 11, 2023, Idaho Senator Jim Risch asserted that military strikes in the Caribbean are “absolutely, totally and 100 percent legal under U.S. law and international law.” These operations, which commenced on September 2, have reportedly resulted in nearly 100 fatalities. Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley challenged Risch’s claims, emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to declare war.
Risch attempted to differentiate the strikes from warfare by describing them as “kinetic action.” This characterization has drawn criticism, as the term “kinetic” often applies to the violent nature of warfare itself. The legal implications of these strikes have been under scrutiny, particularly given the high civilian casualty figures.
On December 9, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth introduced a new AI chatbox, which reportedly stated that an order to kill two survivors of a boat strike would be “an unambiguously illegal order.” This statement raises further questions about the legality and ethical considerations of the ongoing military actions in the Caribbean.
Reports from Reuters have indicated that some U.S. military personnel involved in these operations have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements. This development suggests a deeper level of concern regarding the ramifications of these strikes and the legal protections for those involved.
Examining the Historical Context and Rules of Engagement
Drawing from personal experience as a former aerial observer during the Vietnam War, this article provides insight into the complexities of military engagement rules. The author recalls serving in a combat role, where decisions about targeting were based on strict engagement protocols. During the Vietnam conflict, strikes were often conducted under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was later discredited due to misinformation.
In the author’s view, the current operations in the Caribbean lack the necessary legal justification. “Had I been overhead for any of the Trump/Hegseth strikes, I would not have pulled the trigger,” they stated, emphasizing the absence of a declared war and the presence of civilians in the targeted areas.
Instead of military strikes, the author advocates for the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct searches and interdictions, similar to their historical efforts. Last year, the Coast Guard seized 225 metric tons of cocaine, highlighting alternative methods to combat drug trafficking without resorting to lethal force.
Implications for Military Personnel and Political Accountability
The current strikes represent a significant shift from the Vietnam era, where aerial observers operated largely on a subjective basis. Today’s military personnel benefit from advanced surveillance and documentation technologies. Each strike is recorded, raising the stakes for accountability regarding legal and ethical standards.
As both Trump and Hegseth publicly endorse these operations, there may be unanticipated legal consequences for those involved. While the Supreme Court has provided certain immunities for Trump, individuals participating in the strikes could face scrutiny for their actions.
As the debate continues, Senator Risch is urged to critically engage with the legal framework surrounding military operations and the implications for those involved. The ongoing discourse raises vital questions about the balance of power, accountability, and legal standards in U.S. military engagements.
In conclusion, as the situation in the Caribbean unfolds, the need for a clear and consistent legal framework remains paramount to avoid potential violations of both U.S. and international law.
