Army Law Expert Analyzes Pentagon's 'Fog of War' Comments on Caribbean Strike

Legal Responsibility for the Second Strike

• ⚖️ Secretary Hegseth's authorization of the initial attack implies legal responsibility, even if he didn't personally order the second strike.
• 🎯 The government's theory of being in an armed conflict with a narco-terrorist group is the basis for determining if the boat was a lawful military target.
• ❓ There are significant questions about the legitimacy of claiming a war against a criminal gang.

The 'Fog of War' Defense

• 🌫️ Secretary Hegseth cited the "fog of war" to explain the difficulty in seeing survivors due to fire and smoke after the initial strike.
• 🗣️ However, the expert suggests this statement was more about distancing himself from the decision to launch the second attack rather than explaining the admiral's actions.
• 🧐 The commander who ordered the second strike needs to answer questions about the target of the second attack and the urgency behind it.

Questions Regarding the Second Strike

• 🚢 If the vessel was on fire and no longer a threat, targeting it again raises questions about urgency and necessity.
• 🆘 Knowing there were survivors clinging to the vessel, the critical question becomes why it was urgent to strike again at that moment, potentially leading to their deaths.
• ⚓ The vessel was determined to be a military objective, and if still afloat, sinking it could be logical, but the timing of the second strike is the core issue.
• 🚫 The vessel was dead in the water, not armed, and not fleeing, making the urgency of a second strike questionable.