The Pentagon’s comprehensive manual on the law of war does not attempt to identify or enumerate every conceivable form of illegal command that might arise in the context of armed conflict. Nevertheless, it leaves no ambiguity about certain orders that are categorically prohibited. Among these, the manual explicitly cites directives to open fire upon shipwreck survivors as examples of conduct that would be manifestly unlawful. Within its extensive 1,200 pages, the manual continually reaffirms a foundational principle of international humanitarian law: that any combatant who has been rendered incapable of fighting—whether by injury, capture, or shipwreck—is entitled to humane treatment and fundamental protection from further harm. To illustrate this rule in practice, the manual repeatedly invokes the case of shipwrecked personnel, an illustrative scenario that has recently resurfaced in public debate following a controversial counter-narcotics operation in the Caribbean on September 2.
During this mission, which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth later stated he personally observed in real time, U.S. forces targeted what they believed to be a drug-smuggling vessel. The military reportedly conducted two separate strikes on the same boat. The first strike was said to have killed nine individuals suspected of involvement in smuggling operations, while a subsequent strike—carried out after the vessel had already been incapacitated—reportedly killed the two remaining survivors. According to information published by The Washington Post, which cited multiple individuals with knowledge of the classified operation, the second strike has become the focal point of legal and ethical concerns. Hegseth strongly rejected the Post’s claim that he had instructed military leadership to kill everyone aboard the vessel, dismissing the newspaper’s allegations as “fake news.” The secretary further maintained that ongoing operations in the region were entirely consistent with both U.S. domestic statutes and international humanitarian law, asserting that all actions had undergone legal scrutiny by senior military and civilian counsel throughout the chain of command.
The White House, in seeking to clarify decision-making on the issue, stated that responsibility for authorizing the second strike belonged not to Hegseth but to Admiral Frank Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command. Officials explained that the action was taken to ensure the suspected narcotics vessel was completely incapacitated and to eliminate any residual threat to the United States. Nevertheless, the matter remains highly sensitive, and Admiral Bradley has been called to appear in a closed congressional briefing. His direct control over a tactical strike of this nature deviated from established procedures, as such operations are ordinarily coordinated by the appropriate geographic combatant command—in this instance, the Southern Command, led until recently by Admiral Alvin Holsey. Holsey’s abrupt retirement, announced by Hegseth only weeks before, has added another layer of uncertainty to the chain of authority surrounding the incident.
The Trump administration continues to defend the legality of the mission. Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson publicly stated that Admiral Bradley “made the right call,” reinforcing the administration’s position that the operation complied with applicable law. When Business Insider sought additional clarification regarding the decision to carry out a second strike, Pentagon officials deferred to Hegseth’s social media post reiterating his support for Bradley’s judgment and affirming the legality of the mission. In an apparent effort to demonstrate transparency, the Department of Defense later released footage of a separate November 10 operation in the Caribbean, showing an attack that officials claimed killed four male individuals described as “narco-terrorists.”
President Donald Trump, however, has distanced himself somewhat from the controversy. While emphasizing his continued confidence in Secretary Hegseth, he stated that he personally “wouldn’t have wanted” a second strike, promising to further investigate the details. According to the White House, Hegseth delegated limited authority to Bradley to engage suspected drug traffickers, though Trump asserted, “Pete said he did not order the death of those two men.”
Legal scholars have weighed in heavily on the issue, arguing that if the second strike indeed targeted survivors from an already disabled and sinking boat, it would represent a direct and unequivocal breach of established U.S. military law and of fundamental principles codified in the international law of armed conflict. Dan Maurer, a retired Army judge advocate general and current law professor at Ohio Northern University, described such an act as a “patent violation” that any trained military officer should immediately recognize as unlawful. He explained that the law of war unambiguously prohibits attacking wounded, sick, captured, or shipwrecked individuals unless they re-engage in hostilities. In Maurer’s words, “Unless they are actively threatening or attacking you, they cannot lawfully be targeted.” Moreover, he emphasized the affirmative obligation of armed forces to render aid to shipwrecked survivors, including efforts to rescue them from drowning when possible.
According to the Pentagon’s law of war manual, one of its central purposes is the prevention of unnecessary suffering and the humane treatment of those rendered hors de combat—that is, those incapable of fighting—such as the wounded, the ill, and the shipwrecked. These principles find their foundation in international instruments like the Geneva Conventions, drafted in large part with active U.S. participation in the aftermath of World War II. Under those binding legal frameworks, combatants who are no longer able to participate in hostilities must be safeguarded and, in maritime contexts, rescued whenever feasible.
The manual also differentiates between combatants and noncombatants. In the case of maritime interdictions involving suspected narcotics smugglers, the individuals aboard such vessels are not enemy combatants in a traditional sense, but civilian suspects engaged in alleged criminal activity. For this reason, the rules governing the use of force in these contexts are narrower. Force may be used in self-defense or to neutralize an immediate threat, but once a vessel is disabled and can no longer endanger U.S. military or law enforcement personnel, policy and international custom dictate that the focus shift to humanitarian rescue or law enforcement detention.
Typically, operations targeting drug trafficking at sea fall under the primary jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard, occasionally supported by Navy personnel or assets. Coast Guard protocol explicitly requires transitioning from combat posture to rescue mode once a suspect vessel has been neutralized. By contrast, the Pentagon’s recent characterization of suspected smugglers as “narco-terrorists” reflects an evolving and contentious policy approach. Earlier this year, the White House formally designated several drug cartels and related organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, thereby expanding potential military engagement authorities. Yet, Congress has not passed any specific authorization for the use of military force to support these operations. Consequently, legal analysts argue that the broader legitimacy of such strikes—particularly those resulting in the deaths of shipwrecked survivors—remains under serious question.
Since September, U.S. military forces have reportedly conducted numerous strikes against suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific, resulting in more than eighty fatalities. In one instance, two survivors of a similar October strike were rescued by American personnel and repatriated to their home countries. This contrasting outcome has only deepened the debate over the Caribbean incident, as lawmakers and legal experts seek to determine whether U.S. actions at sea have adhered to the obligations enshrined in the very laws the Pentagon claims to uphold.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/pentagons-laws-of-war-says-shipwrecked-fighters-cant-be-killed-2025-12
