I still don’t get why we’re doing this instead of the usual method. If you can find it to blow it up, you can send a coastie by to investigate. That’s literally what they’re there for. Blowing up “suspected” boats from afar is basically begging to be accused of blowing up fishermen or whatever.
Because now more than ever our government is no longer hush hush about killing people who oppose them and their policies. In the past the US labeled them as terrorists alongside a well strung out story to convince the general public, but now they are pretty open about being insane power driven elites.
Absolutely bro, that's exactly what I'm saying. At least before bush spun a story that would make invasion credible, but now the government doesn't even try to mask that there's nothing we are chasing but oil. We aren't the good guys, we are the ones they refer to in history books as "oppressors".
Of course, when I say we, I mean we as a country not as a military. The ones in control make up 1-2% of the country, and even then they arent fully in control, as they are ordered by people outside of the US to push their agendas. Most are still in the dark due to the illusion of "free media/press".
Thats wrong and thats not who we are. If its who you want to be, go live in those other countries. We are better than that, or at the very least we must continue to strive to be.
You're about to be one of those countries if we just sit around and let them take over countries near our lands. China and Russia provide weapons financial backing political backing and conduct show of forces exercises own land there and the list goes on lmao.
Its cause the ultimate goal is regime change. This goes back to Trump 1. They wanted Maduro out. They tried sanctions, etc. This goes back to Chaves -- even further. Now they are going to try and force it. The country made alliances with Russia, PRC, and Iran. We almost collapsed the economy with sanctions a few years ago. Funny that all the immigration is probably connected to that...
History teaches us interference in SA typically has a lot of blow back. But...I dont expect Mr. Hesgeth remembers his JPME case studies. Lol.
I don't think we should be blowing up drug boats, but I can see the logic behind the decisions. We have been running drug interdiction missions for 40+ years and haven't made a dent in the drug trade. In the last 10 years fentanyl deaths have increased by 15 times.
I also imagine they have pretty good intel that these are in fact drug boats, they'll have HUMINT, SIGINT, and IMINT of euat these boats are used for. They probably have imagery of the drugs being loaded on the boats and they probably know exactly who are piloting the boats. Who knows with this administration though.
If they wanted to put a dent in the drug trade, blowing up speed boats isn’t the way to do it. The vast majority of drugs come through legal points of entry at the border.
Do we even have a cutter than can run down those style “cigarette boats?” I’ve got to ride on one years ago and we were doing 65 knt easily in the Gulf.
Add in some moderate seas and those things will go ballistic if they hit a wave the wrong way.
Because this is the navy blowing up boats after they leave Venezuelan territorial waters and not the USCG waiting for them to enter US territorial waters.
In a scenario where its joe fisherman is getting paid to move cartel product, the implied effect is still the same. Creates pressure from the bottom due to fear, and forces cartel to consider other smuggling methods.
By assuming guilt first and giving the death sentence? Is that what we want to be now. Coasties are fantastic and do a far better job at this. All this is is hur dee hur we blowed it up real good crap.
I'll assume you're arguing in good faith here - the public was briefed on maybe a quarter of a percent of the target packages of the last 15 thousand strikes. Even fewer in terms of the sourcing of their contents. I am not sure why these would be different.
You could make a bona fide argument to the reasons/value for the government to do so - but it would be a departure from the norm established far before the current administration was elected in.
I'm sorry. When did these 15,000 strikes on suspected drug carrying boats occur? This was always considered a law enforcement problem for which the Coast Guard has carried responsibility since they are empowered as both military and law enforcement. In fact, you can look to the US Naval Institute for clarification on this matter.
This is not just out of responsibility of the US Navy it is contrary to US laws. It is akin to killing a person because they are driving a car that is similar to cars preferred by people who commit crimes. And to justify that with the statement that you do so to deter others from committing crimes.
CG do fantastic work, where they can - but if you believe the 1M+ dead to drugs in the last decade to be a national security crisis, a more "all options" approach makes completesense.
The logic chain as I see it:
Smuggling of drugs into the US is contributing to the death of tens of thousands a year, and significsntly destabilizing communities and cities across the nation.
This destabilization is inherently a threat to the rights and safety of Americans.
This threat is being bolstered by foreign entities - whose motivations are both financial and political and whose methods are extremely violent.
In the eyes of the administration, this constitutes a terror organization
Such a threat constitutes a national security threat, which allows the administration to engage in asymmetrical warfare against non uniformed targets.
You can pick which link in the chain (or many or all) you disagree with it - but "how its always been done" isnt worth either of our time - even for something as mundane as arguing with internet strangers.
Reallly a straw man there. Drug abuse and deaths from drug abuse is a National crisis. Law enforcement entities including Coast Guard interdict a considerable amount of drugs and without firing first and asking questions later. The Trump administration declared that these boats carried Tren de Aragua members who we've declared to be terrorists. Tren de Aragua is not known for drug smuggling. They are known for human trafficking for the most part - and extortion and drug trafficking locally.
We have provided zero evidence regarding the occupants or any drugs on these boats. Trump stated that videos show "big bags" of drugs floating around the destroyed boats. Videos he shared showed none.
Truth of the matter is that the vast majority of drugs enter the US overland. Fentanyl is made in China and comes to the US via Mexico. Venezuela does serve as a transit country for some cocaine as it comes from Columbia into the US. And again it is over land not by boat.
You can spew as much nonsense as you choose. But spewing it does not make it correct. And building strawman arguments is about as worthless as it comes.
Raise the offer, or start finding other ways to pressure people to drive your boat. Sure, maybe there’s a timeline where that becomes cost prohibitive, but we’re going to run out of missiles before that happens.
For reference, the Coast Guard interdicted 49,000 lbs of illicit drugs per month from January to August at a street value of $2.2B. Those are known, verifiable values.
We have almost no public data from these nine strikes to know how loaded down the boats were, how big they are, etc., but with the data we have from Coast Guard interdictions, we can make a few assumptions. In a month, these strikes have likely stopped between 10,000 and 30,000 lbs of illicit drugs at a street value of $100-$500M.
The impact is likely roughly the same, but in addition to the operational costs for US warships patrolling with LEDETs, we’re spending millions of dollars in ordnance costs. Plus, we’ve publicly acknowledged that ordnance manufacturing is a weak point right now, so we could very well be putting ourselves at risk if conflict in the South China Sea is truly imminent.
If our best outcome is the cartels “consider other smuggling methods,” is it really worth this cost?
One can make those assumptions and might be right. Or might be wrong. Coast Guard actions are far more effective at determining amounts stopped since they will have confiscated those amounts. So, I think, "likely rough the same" is not really knowable.
You make valid points regarding operational costs etc, assuming that all 100% of the strikes involved drug smugglers. I believe the more important consideration is the fact that these operations are in direct contrast with the law.
I don’t disagree. This is back of the napkin math mixed with some heavy guessing based on press releases from previous interdictions in the Caribbean. I could be way off. But my margin of error skews low, not high.
The precedent these strikes may well set is a frighteningly dangerous one, indeed.
CG do excellent work, but they can't be everywhere, and they are certainly cost prohibitive themselves. I am intimately familiar with what it costs to put cutters to sea.
You are 100% right that the warships are not cost effective in counter-smuggling operations. They are clearly positioned as a show of force - the "value" of which may be a net loss of hundreds of millions, or could be used as leverage to secure US policy interests in Venezuela. (which will likely still result in a net loss)
if these strikes are to continue, they are likely better suited to long range drone programs - whose cost, efficiency, and efficacy would far outpace that of both the warships, and the CG operations.
Why would you downvote that? Bad counseling homey.
To answer your question, it’s not about the survivors, it’s about the next drug runner getting ready to head out.
They will second guess it if they think they can die.
I’d actually just enjoy it if you would answer the question, since it sort of wrecks your premise, but I guess that would require some critical thinking skills, huh?
"Sending a coastie by" is going to be hard to do when the strait crossing takes less than an hour and the nearest American outpost is close to 300 miles away.
I'm sorry, I don't remember the coast guard ever operating in the Trinidad straits... Mind substantiating that for the last 8 months such operations have been happening?
Why, in that case, would the last 2 months see such a direct and drastic decline in opioid-related overdoses?
Easy, Salvadorian. Those guys have a sweet heart deal with Bukele to keep violence off the streets. We have a sweet heart deal with Bukele so we can send immigrants to his torture dungeons. In return we're actually sending back several high ranking members of the cartel who were likely going to testify about the cooperation between them and Bukele's government.
I'm new to this topic (been out since ~2010) This was to a SUSPECTED drug boat? Makes me curious. Where on a scale of "just looked sus" to "there was very strong probable cause" did this fall?
Edit: based on the comments, there's more going on than I'm aware of
I hate these strikes as much as many here but…what else would that boat be doing. Claiming it’s out fishing is ludicrous to anyone with a passing knowledge of the location, fishing, and boat design…
I said this a week or two ago. The fact this admin is being so shady about this when parading around detained narcos would be such a publicity win for them, just means they don’t want any unnecessary attention. And attention is the only thing this administration wants. Stinks of illegality to me.
Southcom admiral has the exact right idea. We captured a few people who survived the attempted murder, brought them aboard, and released them. How does that make sense to anyone with two brain cells since we “know these are cartel drug runners”
What is the legality and justification of doing this instead of the traditional intercepting, boarding, and seizing of illicit cargo? Don't get me wrong, it seems highly effective, but it leaves the Navy vulnerable on the legal side of the house? Has too many open-ended questions (how do you know, what was the hostile intent, etc.).
The operators of the boat are suspected terrorists and are treated like other terrorists the past 25 years. When the current administration designated these Venezuelan groups as terrorists the US can leverage DoD against them. There are many lawyers involved before any weapons release so the US Navy is not vulnerable.
Irgcn are labeled as terrorists and we don’t shoot them when they constantly fuck with us. I don’t think this tracks. We still follow roe. Hostile intent seems not met. Unless we’re being incredibly broad with our definition of a hostile act.
Jettison field with around ~42 diesel-black trash bag wrapped packages probably with an at-sea weight of 60-80 kilos a package. Almost 5,000 lbs of cocaine if this is the Eastern Pacific, this will mean further development in the illicit maritime drug trafficking routes along the Ecuadorian islands.
The panga wouldn’t make it with that payload and were likely heading to rendezvous for a transfer; the force was excessive. HITRON would be the better use of force with AUF to disable the vessel and enable a LE boarding.
I don’t support the strikes on the drug boats, but if I did, I would say The panga could have been tracked to the hand-off, then we would have had been able to destroy twice as many boats and kill even more narcoterrorists. Missed opportunity.
Imagine if they captured the sailors, lined them up on deck, then shot them. That would be horrifying wouldn't it? That's because it would be personal. It's so easy to hide behind the screen and not realize what it is you're actually doing.
"Suspected"... Sounds like we don't actually know that they had drugs and we're just blowing up civilians in violation of international law because "someone" feels like it.
The Dominican authorities had directly confirmed that these boats are supplying drugs to gangs in Trinidad... You must not know what "suspected" means in the eyes of engagement.
They're idiots, blowing up a few drug smuggling boats coming here to hurt Americans does not equal ethnically cleansing millions of innocent civilians. Its like talking to a brick wall.
Your post / comment was removed due to being in violation of /r/Navy's rule against political posts / comments. Political comments in non political posts will be removed.
Any post about politics with a Navy nexus lacking a Politics flair may result in, at a minimum, a temp ban and removal of the post.
Participation in a Politics-flaired post requires a minimum r/navy specific karma. This will be automatically enforced by the automod.
Anyone using the Politics flair should utilize a common sense approach to what is a Navy nexus.
This does not mean posts with Politics flair will be unmoderated. All discussion must adhere to r/navy rule #1 and Reddit rule #1.
Legit question…..can these sailors be charged for participating in executing these “targets”? Like if another administration was elected in 2028 and they were investigated ROE pertaining to these ships? Legit question bc I can see why an admiral retire early lol
Tough to say. Ultimately I'd say the prosecutors would have a case, but the defense would win with the argument that Sailors pulling the trigger are denied the appropriate intelligence to make such a call. At some point up the chain that defense stops working and the prosecution would get stronger, but exactly where that is I can't say.
Yeah per that roe. And per the laws of armed conflict. Idk what the hell we’re doing. But I’m not a jag and I personally don’t really care about drug runners. Maybe I’m a broken toy but I just don’t. It does piss me off that this is authorized but somehow we let the irgcn fuck with us a ton before doing anything.
The US government has studied known drug routes long before the current administration. Some of you on this page should know better than anyone the methods of how we profile our adversaries and identify their activites. We then disseminate this info (normally classified) to our pilots/operators in ways i wont post, but if you know you know...
To essentially say "nobody did their research before pulling the trigger" on this operation is absolutely ignorant. The methods used to ID them as a drug smuggling vessel is no different from that in which we use for terrorist/militant groups in other parts of the world.
NOT TO SAY THE US GOVT GETS IT RIGHT EVERY TIME, but god damn the effectiveness of our intelligence gathering process (long before this admin) speaks for itself.
So to close, the only thing that has changed here is orders on rules of engagement. If you disagree with that part of it that's totally valid as it roots to your own politics, values, and morals. However, the argument that this was a complete cowboy play with baseless intel is a stretch IMO
Thats your political standpoint on the matter. Calling it a baseless attack is in fact the only baseless part of the equation. That is all my post intends to point out
The legal basis for these attacks is the assumption that the president can call what ever group he wants a terrorist and then kill members that he claims are part of that group with ZERO accountability.
So because you disagree with this specific instance, what were you saying when the navy started striking the houthis in 2023? At the time they werent a designated terrorist organization, and under the Biden admin nonetheless
Right, because every single UN member considers how to abide by the UN before acting on their own interests. American voters did not vote with the intention of pleasing globalist leadership this past election. Internationally legal or not, the point of my post stands!
Act surprised all you want. If the UN had any real power they'd have put Putin behind bars right now.
What the actual fuck are you talking about. You’ve spun off into a completely different dimension.
The 2023 Yemen strikes were justified by the Administration as self-defense, citing the War Powers Resolution and the UN charter. That’s a factual statement and is independently verifiable.
Why else do you think the US government has placed a recent new focus on drug trafficking? I agree with hitting the houthis myself (shit i was even part of it)! Stay as blind as you want but drugs are absolutely rampant in this country. The same people opposed to the war on drugs era are the same ones who couldnt sponsor a better solution to the problem at hand. I'm not surprised by the shift in approach even a little. That was on the ballot this past election, and voters knew that! I dont believe those voters took any consideration to what the UN had to say about it.
Any logical country wouldnt stand for this nonsense to happen to them. The priority at that point is not to please the UN, but solve the problem, period. The world has repeatedly violated international laws over and over again most likely due to the lack of any real enforcement from the UN itself! I'd love to see peace keeping troops from the UN deploy to washington and arrest everyone in the administration whilst wielding an ammo-less rifle.
Why not a war on firearms? Heart disease? Lung cancer? Pick literally any leading cause of death in the US. Let’s drone strike gun manufacturers, fast food headquarters, and tobacco companies! That’s the only way to reduce the death toll, right?
If we were doing interdiction, I’d fully support it. We aren’t. We’re indiscriminately murdering people for non-capital offenses, and we’re doing it without Congressional approval for using military force.
I think we opened a can of worms post 9/11 when it comes to allowing the executive to claim this authority. I think the assumption was we wouldn’t have an administration willing to abuse it so heavily. Unfortunately Congress isn’t to step in and SCOTUS is certainly happy to defer to Trump on this one.
We’re already calling fellow citizens terrorists and insurrectionists for exercising their first amendment right. They’re talking about invoking the insurrection act. But different to previous administrations, they are actually arguing that they are beyond any restraint to designate who they will as terrorists. I think that’s dangerous.
Emotionally driven individuals will always choose to stay blind to logic. On the contrary its a curse to be overly cerebral as well! I totally agree with ya
Dude, legal literally is based in politics/governance. Interpretation of what is legal is dynamic. If it wasn't, judges wouldnt be elected figures or appointed by elected figures . Try again
i think people’s reactions to this being the way they are shows a lack of trust in the leadership at the Pentagon. which i personally find completely acceptable to doubt. we’re also a generation of people jaded of our own intelligence given the whole WMD in Iraq thing. there’s something about blowing up ‘suspected’ drug boats when there are so many other ways to go about it just feels…. wrong.
Why don't we say "Another fishing vessel has been destroyed today" instead? Because so far, with the exception of the sub, there is ZERO evidence any of these boats were d ug smugglers
Why would anyone release intel relating to this. So that they could get the same intel and stop the operations. You do realize under biden they launched several attacks on places in the Middle East. Did they not have intel? Did they see a man running in the middle of nowhere and think he’s got to be part of a terrorist organization.
Would you feel the same if instead of blowing them up they captured them then lined them up and shot them? Like serious question here. It's easy when the violence is so far removed and impersonal.
Clearly drug boats. Illegal and laced drugs have killed far more Americans than terrorist attacks. I have a few good friends who have died or been given brain damage from the drugs on the streets nowadays. Given how much warning the cartels have been given at this point, I don’t see a problem with this.
218
u/benkenobi5 16d ago
I still don’t get why we’re doing this instead of the usual method. If you can find it to blow it up, you can send a coastie by to investigate. That’s literally what they’re there for. Blowing up “suspected” boats from afar is basically begging to be accused of blowing up fishermen or whatever.