The US military’s recent kinetic strikes on suspected drug-carrying vessels off Venezuela, championed by President Donald Trump as a victory against “narco-terrorists,” have ignited a fierce global debate over legality, ethics, and the evolving tactics of the “War on Drugs” in the Caribbean. These operations mark a significant shift in US policy, drawing criticism from international bodies and legal experts, while US officials assert their effectiveness in disrupting illicit drug flows.
In a dramatic escalation of the “War on Drugs,” the United States military has carried out multiple kinetic strikes on suspected drug-carrying vessels in international waters off the coast of Venezuela. These actions, ordered by President Donald Trump, represent a significant departure from previous interdiction tactics, drawing both praise for disrupting illicit networks and intense scrutiny over their legality and ethical implications.
The Kinetic Strikes: A Timeline of Escalation
Since the beginning of September, the US military has launched a series of strikes targeting vessels allegedly transporting illegal narcotics. President Trump has frequently announced these operations, often sharing video footage of the destruction. The timeline of these notable strikes includes:
- September 1: The first reported strike in the southern Caribbean, allegedly killing 11 people on a vessel from Venezuela.
- September 2: President Trump announced a strike on a “drug-carrying boat” that killed 11 individuals, identified as members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, according to the administration.
- September 15: Another vessel was hit, as confirmed by President Trump at Naval Station Norfolk, noting it was the second vessel struck in recent weeks.
- September 19: An additional strike took place, contributing to the rising death toll associated with these operations.
- October 3: A fourth strike was conducted, continuing the pattern of kinetic action against suspected drug boats.
- October 14: The latest strike killed six suspected traffickers, bringing the total reported deaths from these five operations to 27.
These operations have involved a substantial US military presence in the Caribbean, including the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman, the USS Stockdale, the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima, and additional destroyers, cruisers, and even F-35 stealth fighters stationed in Puerto Rico, as reported by the Miami Herald.
US Justification: Combating ‘Narco-Terrorists’ and Venezuela’s ‘Cartel de los Soles’
President Trump has consistently framed these strikes as a direct response to what he calls “cartel terrorists” and “narco-terrorist networks” that threaten American security. He claims the targeted vessels were transporting substantial amounts of narcotics, often associated with designated terrorist organizations, along known transit routes to the United States. Following the strikes, Trump asserted, “we have absolutely no drugs entering our country by water, because they (the strikes) were lethal.”
The Trump administration has explicitly linked these operations to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his regime, accusing them of running the “Cartel de los Soles” (Cartel of the Suns). In 2020, the Justice Department indicted Maduro and over a dozen Venezuelan officials, labeling the regime a “narco-terrorist enterprise” and placing a $50 million bounty on Maduro’s head. The immediate goal of the military deployment is largely financial: to cut off drug revenue that allegedly sustains loyalty among Venezuela’s senior military and police commanders.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth confirmed one strike was conducted “on President Trump’s orders” against a “narco-trafficking vessel affiliated with designated terrorist organizations.” He warned that “these strikes will continue until the attacks on the American people are over.” Trump also declared drug cartels “unlawful combatants,” stating the US is in an “armed conflict” with them, a move that significantly redefines the scope of anti-drug operations.
International and Domestic Reactions: A Deep Divide
The US military’s aggressive new strategy has been met with a chorus of strong reactions from various international and domestic actors.
International Condemnation and Concerns
- Russia: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov condemned the strikes, warning of potential escalation in the entire Caribbean region during a phone call with his Venezuelan counterpart, Yvan Gil.
- Venezuela: President Maduro and Venezuelan officials have vehemently denied the US accusations of drug trafficking and condemned the strikes as “imperialist invasion” threats. Maduro signed a decree activating a state of emergency to defend against foreign aggression.
- Colombia: Colombian President Gustavo Petro called for a criminal investigation into President Trump and other US officials involved in the strikes, arguing that the passengers of the boats were “not drug traffickers; they were simply poor young people from Latin America who had no other option.”
Legal and Ethical Debates within the US
Domestically, the strikes have ignited a robust debate, particularly regarding the concept of a “just war” and presidential authority. Critics argue that these actions sidestep congressional war powers and could be considered extrajudicial killings.
Msgr. Stuart Swetland, a US naval academy graduate and navy veteran, emphasized that combating drugs should be treated as a “police action,” not a military conflict. He noted that such actions miss several aspects of the Catholic Church’s just war criteria:
- Rightful Authority: “It’s Congress who declares war. (President Trump) does not have an authorization of force to intervene in the drug war this way.”
- Last Resort: War should be a last resort, after other reasonable means have been exhausted.
- Proportionality: The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
David Cochran, a professor of politics at Loras College, echoed these concerns, stating that “we’re not actually at war with Venezuela – so the use of military power (is) outside of an ongoing war.” He further argued that drug smugglers are not armed combatants in the traditional sense, and it is not permissible to use military force to “summarily execute them,” as reported by OSV News.
David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, called the military strikes “both illegal and unconstitutional,” asserting that “the law is clear that the military is only authorized to intercept vessels to communicate with them and refer them to civilian law enforcement,” according to The Center Square. This legal challenge was highlighted when Republican senators, with the help of one Democrat, blocked a proposal to require congressional approval for such military actions.
Impact and Future Implications
US officials claim the operation is having a “real impact,” with the “Caribbean route” for cocaine allegedly shut down, threatening the financial stability of Maduro’s regime and potentially eroding profits from illicit trafficking. Cocaine produced in Colombia’s Catatumbo region is reportedly piling up inside Venezuela, forcing cartels to explore more costly air and land corridors through Central America.
However, the long-term effectiveness of this kinetic approach is debated. Historically, the “War on Drugs” has struggled to stem the flow of illicit substances due to persistent demand in the United States. Critics argue that blowing up boats and killing traffickers will not address the root causes of drug problems or necessarily stop the supply, but rather force cartels to adapt and find new routes, potentially leading to more violent conflicts. President Trump has already suggested expanding military action to target cartels coming “by land,” and options under review reportedly include drone strikes on cartel figures and clandestine drug labs inside Venezuela.
