As is often the case in these angry times, the political reaction to current events is more telling than the event itself. Last week, the consuming issue in broadcast and internet media was the Trump administration’s aggressive actions targeting “narco-terrorism” originating in South America, and subsequent revelations of what appeared to be a horrific “war crime” by U.S. forces in that campaign — the latter teasing the possibility of political demise of the oft-criticized secretary of war, along with a U.S. Navy vice-admiral and perhaps even the president himself.

Cooler heads are now prevailing, but the damage has been done: more political broadsides leveled in both directions, and further drip-drip erosion of trust in our political leadership.

The backdrop: why we’re in the Caribbean

There is growing — and long overdue — U.S. interest and attention to what’s going on in our own hemisphere, including government instability (notably, the Nicolás Maduro takeover in Venezuela), extensive poverty, endless numbers of migrants seeking better and safer lives in the U.S., and the steady increase in drug-related deaths involving cocaine grown and processed in South American countries. For those reasons, the U.S. Navy has established a dramatically more visible presence in that arena.

Taking on the drug traffickers

Illicit drugs are taking a huge toll in American lives. The Trump administration’s first big step in addressing that problem was shutting the southern border, but the number of U.S. drug-related deaths remains intolerably high, demanding action.

The bulk of those drug-related fatalities are caused by cocaine laced with opioids, particularly fentanyl. The fentanyl comes primarily from China, but massive amounts of cocaine are grown and processed in South America and sent to their ultimate destination — the streets of the U.S. — via an intricate transportation network controlled by international cartels. The first leg of that trip is usually the “go-fast” boats, designed for that purpose, each capable of rapid transit of a ton or more of cocaine to staging locations in Mexico.

Beginning just two months ago, the Trump administration initiated a succession of widely publicized military drone strikes targeting those shipments, sending the go-fast boats, their occupants, and their cocaine cargos to the bottom of the ocean. The administration has proudly publicized its success in this arena — 23 successful strikes so far, preventing 30-40 tons of cocaine from ever reaching U.S. shores. That’s only a part of the solution, affecting perhaps one quarter of the ongoing drug transport, but it’s a good start, certainly disrupting the drug-trafficking network.

Successful or not, the administration’s actions have raised the ire of many Democrats who raise concerns about the uncertain legality, the use of military force in that way, and the “extra-judicial” deaths involved. But — surprise, surprise — the American public at large, weary of empty talk and hungry for meaningful progress in this area, has so far strongly endorsed Trump’s aggressive approach.

The war crime allegations

Then there was last week’s blockbuster report by The Washington Post, asserting that on at least one occasion, U.S. forces intentionally killed survivors of the go-fast boat attacks. If true, the implications are profound, calling to mind images of barbaric, pointless slaughter of defenseless victims — un-American and clearly in violation of our own and international standards.

But as is often the case, the Post’s reporting is both late and well off the mark. Its front page headline declared that in early September, before the Navy’s first go-fast boat strike, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth ordered the killing of any and all survivors, in turn dictating an unnecessary second strike on an already destroyed boat, killing two survivors clinging to the wreckage. But the Post’s own article identifies neither witnesses nor any other evidence that such an order was ever given — and its allegation has been denied vigorously by Secretary Hegseth and Admiral Mitch Bradley, who was directly in command of the operation.

Moreover, the practice of successive strikes on a single target is not uncommon, for multiple reasons. I’m not sure which branch of the U.S. military services claims ownership of the tactical warfare principle that “anything worth bombing is worth bombing twice,” but it’s generally true. It’s called finishing the job, and it is a grim reminder of the ruthless brutality of warfare. What always counts most is achieving the mission.

In this case, those who express outrage about a second strike on a partially damaged boat seem not to be offended by the strike against that same boat and occupants with devastating incendiary explosives just minutes earlier. There’s nothing humane about warfare. Once engaged, the only successful path is to win the day — and our forces did exactly that.

Bottom lines

The war crimes allegation is a very serious one, and it is being taken seriously by both sides.

But there is no evidence that a “kill everyone” order was given or that it was known (or even knowable) by the U.S. Navy admiral in charge whether a second strike on the damaged go-fast boat could have been avoided. Further, I’d argue that once our military leadership orders a combat operation, it is generally unreasonable and unfair to second-guess the tactical judgments made in the heat of battle by those responsible for its execution.

On that basis, the uproar and politicized calls for heads to roll seem to have died down.

Moreover, what is even more infuriating is the likelihood that the accusation of war crimes was a political setup from the start. Recall that just two weeks ago, out of the blue, the DNC rolled out a very polished video featuring six Democrat members of Congress, each reminding members of U.S. armed services of their right — and responsibility — to refuse to comply with “illegal or unconstitutional” orders. Aside from its potential adverse impact on military effectiveness, that video prompted the question: why?

When challenged by the media, none of the six video participants could name a single illegal or unconstitutional order directed to the U.S. military. Then, like magic, within days, there was WaPo’s shocking revelation that two months earlier (probably about the same time the video was being prepared), Hegseth had issued an order that was not just illegal, but an actual war crime — one that could bring down the entire administration. Coincidence? No way.

Which brings us to the broader question of the legality and efficacy of an entire military campaign targeting the transport of cocaine, ultimately intended for the USA.

In my view, the underlying designation of drug trafficking as a brand of terrorism — unconventional and unprecedented as it may be — is entirely reasonable, in light of the huge human toll of drug trafficking. Is there a fundamental difference between terrorists who hijack commercial aircraft — with the intent of killing all aboard and thousands on the ground — and today’s narco-terrorists whose lethal products kill thousands of Americans each year? I don’t think so.

Should we be using our military to disrupt that deadly drug trafficking? Clearly, the enormity of the entire machine of illicit drug production and delivery, much of it offshore, argues for engagement of the one and only vehicle we have with the capability to effectively disrupt it — namely, our best-in-the-world military.

Yes, our president’s unhesitating decision to do so pushes established boundaries. Yes, it has a whiff of authoritarianism, and surely it provokes outrage within the No Kings crowd: “There it is again! Hitler! Fascism! Just like we said!” But for context, let’s at least keep in mind that Adolf Hitler was in the business of exterminating Jews; Donald Trump is trying to exterminate the lethal drugs killing Americans.

And above all, it occurs to me — for the umpteenth time — that dealing with the legal complexity and moral contradictions of today’s issues is primarily a matter of keeping our collective priorities straight. On this one, deep-sixing go-fast boats full of cocaine headed for our shores belongs high on the priority list; deep-sixing our political enemies doesn’t belong on the list at all. If we could come together on that simple point, we’d be better able to handle our problems.