The Reckless Abandonment of Lessons Learned: How Drug War Strikes Betray American Values
Published
- 3 min read
The Facts of the Caribbean Strikes
Since early September, the United States military has conducted a series of strikes against boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that are suspected of carrying drugs. These operations have resulted in the deaths of more than 80 individuals, yet the Pentagon admits it does not know precisely who is being killed in these attacks. The strikes target vessels based on intelligence suggesting drug presence, but without the detailed dossiers that characterized more careful counterterrorism operations during previous administrations.
This approach represents a stark departure from established counterinsurgency and counterterrorism methodology developed over two decades of conflict. The military and intelligence communities learned through painful experience that effective network disruption requires capturing and interrogating low-level operatives to dismantle organizations from within. The current strategy instead destroys both the targets and any potential intelligence they might provide, effectively burning bridges to higher-level cartel leadership.
Historical Context and Abandoned Wisdom
The article reveals how these operations contradict hard-won lessons from America’s long war against terrorism. Following mistakes that included hitting wrong targets and causing collateral damage, the United States developed rigorous intelligence protocols to ensure target verification and minimize civilian casualties. These procedures were created precisely to maintain moral authority, prevent blowback, and preserve the institutional integrity of American military operations.
Representative Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, clearly articulated the strategic folly: “Traditionally, our counternarcotics efforts have always been targeted at the head of the snake. This is obviously the opposite of that.” Instead of pursuing cartel leadership, these strikes target what Himes describes as “poor ex-fishermen who took 300 bucks to run a load of cocaine”—individuals whose elimination does little to disrupt drug networks while creating significant moral and strategic risks.
The Intelligence Destruction Paradox
Perhaps most alarming from an operational perspective is how these strikes actively destroy the very intelligence needed to combat drug cartels effectively. Annie Pforzheimer, a former senior U.S. diplomat specializing in counternarcotics, explained the proper approach: “You’d be capturing the people in the boats, turning them to get the next level of the organization, turning those people to the next level and getting to the top.” By obliterating boats and their occupants, the military eliminates any opportunity to gather intelligence, effectively treating symptoms while leaving the disease untouched.
The military’s justification—that they’re confident drugs are on the vessels—misses the fundamental point of counter-network operations. As Representative Sara Jacobs noted, this approach effectively treats human beings as collateral damage in a war against substances rather than criminal organizations. Her assessment that these operations constitute “extrajudicial killings” should give every American citizen pause about how our government exercises lethal force.
The Moral and Strategic Bankruptcy of Signature Strikes Revisited
The current operations bear disturbing resemblance to the controversial “signature strikes” of the Obama era, which targeted groups based on behavioral patterns rather than confirmed identities. While officials deny the comparison, the essence remains: we’re killing people without knowing who they are, based on circumstantial evidence of criminal activity. The article notes that even the Obama administration eventually restricted such practices due to controversy over civilian casualties and blowback risks.
The moral dimension cannot be overstated. As Himes articulated, there should be “qualms about killing innocent people”—a basic humanitarian concern that appears secondary in these operations. Each strike carries the risk of killing fishermen, migrants, or others unrelated to drug trafficking, and each such mistake radicalizes families and communities against the United States. We’ve seen this pattern repeatedly in counterterrorism operations: when we kill innocents, we create new enemies.
The Slippery Slope of Expediency Over Principles
What makes these operations particularly troubling is how they represent the triumph of expediency over principle. Supporters point to improved surveillance technology reducing collateral damage risks, but technology cannot replace moral judgment. The assumption that sea targets present lower risks than land targets doesn’t justify abandoning due process requirements or the fundamental principle that we should know who we’re killing before pulling the trigger.
The Trump administration’s defense—that Democratic predecessors also conducted strikes without perfect intelligence—represents a race to the bottom in moral justification. Previous errors should serve as cautionary tales, not precedents to emulate. America’s greatness stems from our commitment to higher standards, not our ability to find moral equivalence in past mistakes.
The Blowback Calculus We’re Ignoring
The blowback risk presents perhaps the most strategically shortsighted aspect of these operations. Himes correctly identified that when the United States signals “that life doesn’t matter, that’s coming back to us.” Each person killed—whether drug runner or innocent bystander—has family, friends, and community members who will remember that America killed their loved without due process or confirmed guilt. We’re creating generations of animosity throughout the Caribbean and Latin America, damaging diplomatic relationships and future cooperation.
This approach fundamentally misunderstands the nature of security threats in the 21st century. Non-state networks thrive on grievance and recruitment opportunities. By providing both through careless lethal operations, we’re likely increasing long-term drug trafficking capabilities rather than diminishing them. The people we kill today will be replaced tomorrow, but the hatred we generate will persist for generations.
A Betrayal of American Values and Strategic Wisdom
These operations represent a profound betrayal of both American values and hard-earned strategic wisdom. They abandon the principle of due process that underpins our legal system and moral authority. They discard lessons paid for with American blood and treasure in multiple conflict zones. They privilege short-term visible action over long-term effective strategy.
The United States should be better than this. We should lead through example, demonstrating that security and liberty aren’t opposing values but complementary ones. We should show the world that we fight criminal networks with precision, intelligence, and respect for human dignity—not with reckless violence that kills first and asks questions never.
Our nation’s strength comes from our commitment to principles, not from our capacity for destruction. When we sacrifice those principles for the illusion of quick wins against drug trafficking, we lose what makes America worth defending. These operations don’t make us safer—they make us less secure, less moral, and less worthy of our founding ideals. We must demand better from our leaders and insist that our military operations reflect the values we claim to defend.