The United States military has conducted another lethal maritime strike in the Eastern Pacific, resulting in the death of an individual it labelled a 'narco-terrorist'. The incident, which occurred on 22 December, marks a continuation of a controversial campaign that has now claimed over a hundred lives.
Details of the Latest Engagement
According to a statement from US Southern Command, the operation targeted what it described as a 'low-profile vessel' suspected of involvement in international drug trafficking. The command released a video showing the vessel being hit by a second volley of fire, causing it to ignite and become fully engulfed in flames. The strike resulted in one confirmed fatality.
However, the military command provided no immediate public evidence to substantiate its assertion that the boat was engaged in narco-trafficking. This lack of disclosed proof has become a recurring point of contention surrounding these operations.
A Pattern of Deadly Force
This latest action is part of a significant escalation in maritime interdiction tactics. Since early September, there have been 29 known strikes of this nature, leading to at least 105 fatalities. The policy has been a hallmark of the current administration under Donald Trump, which justifies the use of lethal force as a necessary measure to stem the flow of narcotics and to apply pressure on the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
The strategy involves identifying and neutralising vessels far from shore, often based on intelligence linking them to drug smuggling routes from South America towards North America.
Mounting Scrutiny and Legal Concerns
The campaign of strikes has drawn sharp criticism from multiple quarters. US lawmakers and human rights activists have raised serious questions, focusing on two core issues:
- The quality of evidence used to designate targets as drug smugglers.
- The legal and ethical framework, with critics characterising the killings as extrajudicial executions conducted outside any recognised judicial process.
Opponents argue that operating in international waters against non-state actors creates a dangerous precedent for the use of lethal force without due process. The administration maintains that the operations are a vital component of national security and anti-narcotics efforts, though the growing death toll ensures the debate will intensify.
