U.S. Military Boat Strikes in Caribbean and Pacific: Targeting Procedures and Civilian Risk

The U.S. military has conducted over 60 strikes against suspected drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean since early 2025, resulting in more than 200 deaths. These operations, authorized under a directive from the Secretary of War to combat narcotics trafficking, have faced increasing scrutiny from lawmakers and human rights observers regarding the potential presence of human trafficking victims and the use of lethal force against suspected non-combatants. Pentagon officials maintain that these strikes target members of designated terrorist organizations involved in illicit trade, though internal briefings have acknowledged the potential for collateral civilian casualties.

How Are Targets Selected for Maritime Strikes?

Targeting decisions are governed by established military processes that prioritize connections to designated terrorist organizations (DTOs) or their affiliates. According to U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), every individual killed in these operations was an affiliated member of a DTO actively transporting illicit material. However, internal Pentagon briefings have revealed a more complex reality. During testimony, military officials confirmed that the presence of actual narcotics is not a formal targeting criterion. Instead, operators look for links to criminal networks. Reports from The Intercept indicate that the Pentagon does not require positive identification of every individual on a vessel to authorize a strike, relying instead on signals intelligence and situational assessments to establish a connection to a criminal entity.

Why Does the Presence of Multiple Passengers Raise Concerns?

Questions regarding the composition of boat crews emerged following a September 2, 2025, strike that killed 11 individuals. Historically, maritime drug-smuggling vessels—often referred to as “go-fast” boats—typically carry small crews of two to four people to maximize space for cargo. The presence of 11 people on a single vessel led government officials and external analysts, such as those from InSight Crime, to suggest the boat may have been involved in human smuggling or trafficking rather than exclusively drug transport. Rear Adm. Brian H. Bennett, a military officer overseeing Special Operations, acknowledged in a classified briefing that some individuals killed in such strikes could indeed be victims of human trafficking, a statement that drew sharp reactions from lawmakers concerned about the rules of engagement.

Legal Standards and the Use of Force at Sea

The U.S. military’s Law of War Manual prohibits attacking individuals who are shipwrecked, incapacitated, or attempting to surrender. The debate surrounding these strikes often centers on whether vessels or individuals are truly combatants. Critics argue that the reliance on “persona targeting”—a practice adapted from post-9/11 counterterrorism operations—is prone to errors. Sarah Yager, a former senior adviser to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, notes that such procedures are susceptible to confirmation bias, where ambiguous signals are misinterpreted as hostile intent. While the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has provided a classified memo arguing that narcotics-related vessels are lawful military targets within the context of a “non-international armed conflict,” the practical implementation of this policy continues to draw fire from members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees.

Comparison of Vessel Interdiction Data

The effectiveness of identifying illicit vessels from a distance remains a point of contention between military leadership and oversight bodies. Official U.S. Coast Guard statistics highlight the difficulty of distinguishing between legitimate and illicit maritime traffic:

These figures indicate that approximately one in five vessels suspected of drug trafficking by the U.S. Coast Guard were found to be carrying no illicit cargo. Critics, including retired Rear Adm. William Baumgartner, argue that these statistics suggest a high risk of misidentification, particularly when lethal force is authorized based on intelligence gathered from high-altitude aircraft or signals monitoring.

What Happens to Accountability Oversight?

Congressional oversight has been hampered by the classified nature of the briefings provided by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). While Adm. Frank M. Bradley has defended the operations as precise and necessary, members of Congress, including Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), have expressed skepticism regarding the military’s ability to definitively identify all individuals aboard targeted vessels. As the campaign continues, the tension between the administration’s counter-narcotics strategy and the legal protections afforded to civilians under international law remains a primary focus of upcoming legislative hearings.