US Military Denies Killing Survivors, Cites 'Common Sense'
Axios reports that 'Trump allies' are dismissing a Washington Post investigation alleging Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered 'additional strikes on survivors' of Venezuelan boat attacks. Sen. Markwayne Mullin and Rep. Don Bacon claim such an order would be 'foolish' and 'a clear violation of the law of war,' citing 'common sense.' Yet, the 'law of war' has a rather flexible interpretation
when U.S. interests are at play. One might recall documented instances of U.S. forces, or their allies, employing tactics that strain credulity, such as the initial denials regarding the My Lai massacre or the repeated 'mistakes' leading to civilian casualties in Afghanistan. The media frames this as a simple 'he said, she said,' between anonymous sources and outraged politicians. However, it
sidesteps the long, documented history of the U.S. unilaterally enforcing maritime interdictions far from its borders, often against sovereign nations. The immediate dismissal by allies as 'unbelievable' conveniently ignores that similar accusations of extrajudicial killings, particularly in conflicts involving drug trafficking or perceived threats, have arisen before, often dismissed until
undeniable evidence surfaced. The question isn't whether it's 'foolish,' but whether the 'law of war' is regularly applied when it's inconvenient for geopolitical strategy, allowing spokesmen to simply invoke 'common sense' to dismiss grave accusations.