WASHINGTON [IFS] — Admiral Frank M. Bradley arrives on Capitol Hill today under a cloud that has grown darker by the hour, as the Pentagon, Congress, and the Trump administration scramble to contain the fallout from a September 2025 “double tap” strike that killed two survivors clinging to wreckage off the Venezuelan coast.
The classified appearance marks the first time Bradley — who commanded U.S. Joint Special Operations Command at the time — will answer congressional questions about the second strike, an action that senior military officials say they did not explicitly authorize. The incident has rapidly evolved from a quiet internal inquiry into one of the most politically volatile civil-military clashes of the post-2020 era.
A Timeline of Escalating Trouble
Sept. 2, 2025 — The Operation
A U.S. aircraft targeted what intelligence identified as a Venezuelan drug-smuggling boat. The initial strike disabled the vessel, leaving two survivors floating among the debris.
According to a defense official who briefed NBC News, Bradley viewed those survivors as “legitimate military targets” under rules that classified suspected narco-terrorists as hostile combatants. Minutes later, a second strike was ordered — killing the two individuals.
Late September — Quiet Questions Begin
Internal whispers circulated almost immediately. Some JSOC lawyers questioned the legality of striking unarmed survivors with no means of movement. Others pointed to the Pentagon’s own guidance: a commander may engage a target only if the threat is ongoing.
But no one outside a tight circle knew of the incident — yet.
October 2025 — The Narrative Splits
Early November — Hegseth’s Military Speech Backfires
Hegseth traveled to Virginia to address senior military leaders in what sources described as an unusually combative, ideological speech. Multiple officers privately complained it was a “political lecture,” not a strategic briefing.
One attendee described the atmosphere afterward as “ice cold.”
“After that speech, his clout evaporated,” a retired flag officer said. “Respect for him was already thin. That sealed it.”
Mid-November — The Leak That Shifted Washington
A report revealed Hegseth had improperly shared sensitive operational information in a Signal chat earlier in the year — a violation that alarmed Pentagon lawyers and, crucially, raised the question: Was he trying to deflect blame before it landed on him?
Suddenly, the September strike was no longer just about an admiral’s judgment. It was about the secretary’s truthfulness, legal exposure, and whether the Trump administration was preparing to sacrifice military leaders to protect itself.
Dec. 3 — Congress Gets the Video
Lawmakers viewed the classified drone footage for the first time. Many exited the room stunned.
“What I saw was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service,” said Rep. Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “Two individuals in clear distress, without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel — killed by the United States.”
Himes later confirmed Bradley told the committee there was no kill order from Hegseth — directly contradicting Bradley’s earlier assertion that he had authorization.
The credibility gap widened. And so did the legal jeopardy.
A Military Torn Between Loyalty and Law
Inside the Pentagon, frustration has been building for weeks. Officers insist the military is being pushed toward moral, legal, and political breaking points.
“Everybody feels like the Trump team threw them under the ship,” said one Defense Department official. “Morale is bad. Trust is gone.”
The Bradley case cuts directly into the heart of military obedience:
-
If Bradley followed an illegal order, he had a duty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to refuse.
-
If he gave the order himself, the strike may constitute an unlawful killing — potentially a war crime.
Either outcome is catastrophic for a senior commander.
And for younger officers, the takeaway is chilling: obey a potentially illegal order and face prison, or refuse and face retaliation from political appointees.
Will the Military Obey Hegseth Again?
That is now an open question — one rarely spoken aloud in Washington, but privately acknowledged across the services.
After the Virginia speech, after the Signal leaks, after the shifting explanations, and now after the September strike, Hegseth’s authority is described as “terminally damaged.”
“He’s not respected. He’s not trusted. And if he tries to give a controversial order tomorrow, half the Pentagon will call a lawyer before they salute,” said a senior officer familiar with internal discussions.
Some officials argue that Bradley’s grilling is not just about accountability — it is the military drawing a line against a secretary they believe has endangered them, legally and operationally.
“If they want to take out Hegseth,” a former Pentagon official said bluntly, “this is the way to do it.”
Politics, Hypocrisy, and the Drug War Frame
The administration has attempted to justify the strike under the banner of a tougher anti-narcotics campaign. Critics see something different — political theater from leaders who privately indulge in the same vices they weaponize publicly.
“The hypocrisy is outrageous,” said one law enforcement analyst. “Politicians are lecturing the country about cocaine, opioids, Adderall — when so many of them are doing the same drugs. It’s a distraction from their own corruption.”
Religious conservatives pushing the drug-war narrative aren’t spared criticism either. “Half of them preaching purity are taking the same pills behind closed doors,” a former DEA official said. “It’s phony. And deadly.”
Against that backdrop, the deaths of two men off the Venezuelan coast have become a political prop — even as the legality of their killing remains unresolved.
The Admiral at the Center of the Storm
Public opinion inside military circles has been deeply divided. Some say Bradley is being scapegoated for a politically engineered mission whose rules invited disaster. Others view his action as indefensible.
“He violated the rights of those men,” said a former Navy lawyer. “If he was following an illegal order, he had to refuse. If he issued it himself, he’s responsible. Either way, international law applies.”
Today, Bradley faces lawmakers who want answers — not spin.
What Happens Next
Several outcomes are now in play:
-
Criminal inquiry: Pentagon lawyers are already reviewing whether the strike meets the threshold for an unlawful killing.
-
Inspector General review: Expected to expand to include Hegseth’s Signal leak and possible interference in the chain of command.
-
Congressional oversight: Both parties want clearer rules on lethal force in counter-narco operations.
-
Civil-military rupture: The biggest unspoken fear — a breakdown of trust between the uniformed military and Trump’s political appointees.
A Long Shadow Over U.S. Military Conduct
The footage of two wounded men killed in the water will hang over the Pentagon for years. Whether the action is ultimately ruled a war crime or a tragic misjudgment, the Bradley case has exposed deep cracks: in oversight, in leadership, and in the fragile bond between the military and the political class that commands it.
And as Bradley sits in his closed-door hearing today, the question isn’t just what he knew or what he ordered.
It’s whether the military still believes the people above them are worthy of being obeyed.
- 30 -
No comments:
Post a Comment