The Escalating Lethal Campaign: A Dangerous Precedent in the Name of Security

The Facts of the Recent Strike and Its Context

On Monday, the U.S. military, through U.S. Southern Command, announced it had conducted another strike against a boat in the eastern Pacific Ocean, which it accused of smuggling drugs. This action resulted in the deaths of two individuals. According to numbers previously announced by the Trump administration, this latest incident brings the total number of known boat strikes to 30 and the number of people killed to at least 107 since early September. The military stated the vessel “was engaged in narco-trafficking operations” but provided no evidence to substantiate this claim. A video of the strike, shared on social media, shows the boat moving through water before being struck by two explosions.

This campaign is part of a broader escalation justified by President Donald Trump as a necessary measure to stem the flow of drugs into the United States. President Trump has asserted that the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels. Concurrently, the Trump administration has increased military presence in the region as part of a pressure campaign targeting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who faces narcoterrorism charges in the U.S. When questioned by reporters about “an explosion in Venezuela,” Trump confirmed the U.S. had “hit” a dock facility where boats allegedly carrying drugs “load up,” though no further details were provided by the White House or Pentagon.

The strategy has also involved seizing sanctioned oil tankers off Venezuela’s coast, leading some vessels to divert away from the country. President Maduro insists the real aim of U.S. operations is to force him from power, while Trump has hinted at potential land strikes in Venezuela or other nations. The boat strike campaign has faced scrutiny from lawmakers, particularly after revelations that the first attack in September included a follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of their boat.

The Broader Context of U.S. Drug Policy and Military Action

The current escalation must be understood within the historical context of the U.S. “war on drugs,” a decades-long effort that has often prioritized militarization over holistic approaches to addiction and public health. Since the 1970s, U.S. policy has increasingly involved military and law enforcement interventions, both domestically and internationally, with mixed results in reducing drug trafficking but significant human costs. The focus on supply-side interdiction, rather than demand reduction or treatment, has led to cycles of violence and instability, particularly in Latin America.

President Trump’s framing of drug trafficking as an “armed conflict” marks a significant shift, potentially justifying the use of lethal force under the guise of national security. This approach aligns with his administration’s broader tendency to bypass diplomatic channels and institutional checks in favor of aggressive, unilateral actions. The lack of evidence provided for each strike echoes patterns seen in other counterterrorism operations, where accountability is often sidelined in the name of expediency. The involvement of U.S. Southern Command, which oversees military operations in Central and South America, highlights the regionalization of this policy, with Venezuela as a central target due to geopolitical tensions.

The timing of these strikes, amid a global pandemic and domestic unrest, raises questions about priorities and transparency. With limited public oversight and congressional debate, the administration has expanded military engagements without clear metrics for success or ethical boundaries. The reference to an “explosion in Venezuela” further blurs the lines between targeted strikes and broader military actions, potentially escalating tensions in a region already fraught with political instability.

Opinion: A Grave Erosion of Democratic Principles and Human Rights

As a staunch supporter of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law, I view this escalating campaign with profound alarm. The use of lethal military force against individuals accused—but not proven—of crimes represents a dangerous departure from the core values enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and international human rights norms. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” By conducting strikes without transparent evidence or judicial oversight, the administration is effectively acting as judge, jury, and executioner, undermining the very foundations of justice.

The death toll—107 lives lost since September—is not just a statistic; it is a tragic testament to the human cost of this policy. Each number represents a person with inherent dignity, whose killing demands rigorous justification. The revelation that a follow-up strike killed survivors clinging to wreckage is particularly horrifying, evoking images of extrajudicial executions that have no place in a nation committed to liberty. Such actions risk placing the U.S. on a path toward authoritarianism, where military power supersedes legal and ethical constraints.

President Trump’s justification of these strikes as part of an “armed conflict” with drug cartels is a semantic sleight of hand that dangerously expands the scope of military engagement. Drug trafficking, while a serious crime, is not analogous to warfare against sovereign states or organized terrorist groups recognized under international law. By framing it as such, the administration seeks to legitimize actions that would otherwise require greater scrutiny. This rhetoric also diverts attention from the complex socio-economic roots of drug trade, such as poverty and corruption, in favor of simplistic, violent solutions.

The lack of evidence provided for each strike erodes public trust and accountability. In a democracy, the government must demonstrate that its actions are necessary and proportionate, especially when they involve taking human life. The absence of such transparency suggests a policy driven more by political showmanship than strategic efficacy. Indeed, historical precedent shows that militarized approaches to drug interdiction often fail to curb supply while exacerbating violence and human rights abuses. For example, similar policies in Colombia and Mexico have led to cycles of conflict without achieving lasting solutions.

Furthermore, the linkage of these strikes to pressure on Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro introduces a geopolitical dimension that compromises the integrity of the campaign. Using drug policy as a pretext for regime change undermines U.S. credibility and violates principles of national sovereignty. It also risks entangling the nation in prolonged conflicts with unforeseen consequences, diverting resources from critical domestic needs like healthcare and education. The Biden administration must scrutinize these actions and reaffirm commitment to diplomatic, evidence-based approaches.

Upholding Liberty in the Face of Fear

In conclusion, this lethal campaign represents a betrayal of the democratic ideals that define America. True security cannot be achieved by sacrificing liberty, due process, and human dignity. Instead, we must advocate for policies that address drug trafficking through comprehensive strategies—including prevention, treatment, and international cooperation—rather than brute force. Congress must exercise its oversight role to halt these strikes pending thorough review, and the public must demand transparency and accountability. As defenders of freedom, we cannot stay silent while lives are lost in the shadows of unchecked power. The soul of our nation depends on upholding the rule of law, even in the pursuit of security.