Kelly’s Antiheroes: Venezuela, FUD, and the Unforgiving Minute
The latest installment of Operation Undermine came over the weekend, with a WaPo story claiming that the US double tapped one of the Venezuelan drug boats, killing two individuals who had survived the first strike. An illegal order! A war crime! Illegal orders! (With the implication to whoever carried them out should be subject to military justice).
Today the White House said yeah, we did it–and it was legal. This was presumably based on an internal legal finding. So a matter of legal contention, and certainly not so clearcut for the trigger pullers on tap two to overcome the presumption that the order was legal.
Not surprisingly, those calling for SecWar Hegseth’s head conveniently ignore the Obama administration’s rather, shall we say, expansive, claims regarding its authority to whack people–including “collateral damage.” “Obama Administration Claims Unchecked Authority to Kill Americans Outside of Combat Zones.” As the ACLU put it: “The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat.”
Kill Americans deemed by the executive branch to be terrorists. So a fortiori that logic would certainly extend to non-American drug runners designated by the USG as members of a terrorist organization.
The ACLU (more properly, the plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi) lost. It lost because the judge accepted the administration’s argument that the case raised “political issues” and was not justiciable. The ACLU did not appeal.
And there the matter has rested for 14 years. Meaning that the precedents set by the Obama administration provide a huge amount of room to cover the boat strikes–including a double tap.
No doubt if the Venezuela strikes are brought to court, some Obama (or Biden) appointed judge will just like that decide that they are indeed reviewable, and matters for the judiciary rather than for the political branches.
There are also historical precedents. In the aftermath of the Battle of the Bismarck Sea in 1943, American and Australian planes and PT boats killed survivors–probably hundreds of them–from the transports and destroyers that skip bombing B-25s had sunk.
Medal of Honor winning “Mush” Morton, commander of the submarine USS Wahoo, also order the klling survivors of a ship he had sunk.
The US justified both actions, claiming that the survivors posed a continuing threat. In the Bismarck Sea, the US argued that survivors that made it to Lae, New Guinea (their destination before the B-25s jumped them) would be able to join the troops fighting Americans there. (As had happened with Japanese whose ships had been sunk near Guadalcanal).
In any event, the Venezuelan boat strikes too are “political questions.” Yes, this has led to a typical DC tempest. But I am guessing that it will be largely confined to the Beltway and the media. The victims here are hardly appealing. Certainly less appealing than the 16 year old son of Awlaki, the American Obama droned. I would wager that most Americans are on board (so to speak!) with wasting drug boats and their crews, and are not too fussed about the means.
The issues here are also too legalistic for most Americans to care. You bomb a speedboat because you intend to destroy it, and crucially, to kill its crew. If you have the legal right to do so–to kill–it makes little common sense to argue that you have to do so with the first shot, and no second shots are allowed. So there’s little or no room for incremental outrage. If the strikes outrage you because you think killing is unjustified here, fine–the double tap shouldn’t add to your outrage. If the first bomb/shot doesn’t outrage you, follow ons shouldn’t either.
And what are the alternatives? The most straightforward one is to let them drown or become shark food. That’s better?
Another is to rescue them–which could put US personnel at risk, and which the US is under no obligation to do. And capturing them would result in something akin to the Gitmo legal circus–which is one reason why the Obama administration found a kill them all, let Allah sort them out strategy appealing. (NB: conceivably the SEALs could have captured Osama during the raid on his compound in Pakistan, but they were under orders to kill him–and did).
A remaining option is to hope their compadres would pick them up . . . which would result in a situation similar to the Bismarck Sea. In fact, a totally understandable tactic would be to let them swim, hope that rescuers arrived, and then whack the rescuers. So be careful what you ask for!
The main reason that the political calculus favors the administration here is that Maduro’s Venezuela is a very malign actor that gets no sympathy from Americans. Drugs are just one item in a long list of particulars. Maduro vectoring gang bangers to the United States is another. (It is no coincidence, comrade, that Venezuelans were one of Trump’s first and foremost targets).
But most importantly, if you list all of America’s biggest enemies/adversaries–Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Hezbollah, drug cartels–Venezuela is their friend. And these involve more than mere expressions of undying fraternal love: Venezuela has received arms from Russia and Iran, massive financial support from China, has historically been a financial and energy lifeline to Cuba in exchange for Cuban muscle to oppress Venezuelans and protect Maduro, and facilitates Hezbollah operations in the Americas. (Riddle me this: Why is Hezbollah operating in the Americas?). From time to time Venezuela has hosted Russian nuclear capable bombers and combat ships.
So this is the execrable regime that the execrable Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin, et al, are de facto supporting. As if their subversion campaign was not odious enough, to exploit the US’s actions against an enemy to advance that campaign is particularly disgusting.
And seizing on Trump’s anti-Venezuela campaign is particularly dishonest and hypocritical for those who also claim to be ardent supporters of Ukraine because of Russia, and who claim that Trump is Putin’s plaything. Trump is going after Russia’s main ally in the Americas. Maduro is begging Putin for help. If their harsh anti-Russian stance was principled, they would cheer what Trump is doing.
They are doing the opposite. This demonstrates how unprincipled they are.
Since opposing Trump is their one and only objective, we get Orwellian Oceania Has Always Been At War With Eastasia about faces, and Russia’s deep relationship with Venezuela gets ignored by strident anti-Russians.
Indeed, if you look back the first Trump administration, the political and media left that now freaks out about Trump going after Venezuela/Maduro criticized him for not confronting Venezuela. Back then, when Russian bombers landed in Venezuela the establishment was aghast and demanded action. Back then, too, they fretted over Venezuela’s abetting Hezbollah operations. Not to mention their criticism of Maduro’s anti-democratic actions.
In short, all the “ethics” advanced here are purely situational and partisan. Trump is to be excoriated for giving Putin too much in Ukraine because giving anything to such an evil man is wrong. Trump is also to be excoriated for attempting to take down that selfsame evil man’s most important ally in our own hemisphere.
And the means that they are employing to achieve their partisan ends–undermining the military, and the chain of command in particular–are beyond disgusting. The current frenzy over the double tap cannot be separated from the campaign of the Seditious Six to stir fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the military. The frenzy is just a convenient weapon in that campaign. It is instrumental, not principled.
A military cannot function with FUD. Patton frequently invoked Kipling’s “the unforgiving minute.” Every minute-second, really-matters in combat situations. Soldiers, sailors, and Marines who waste that unforgiving minute wrestling with doubts about the legitimacy of their orders are putting themselves, their comrades, and their missions at risk. Yes, there are edge cases, but the subversion of Kelly’s Antiheroes spreads far beyond such cases, as their their cynical exploitation of killing Venezuelan drug runners clearly demonstrates.
Do the Seditious Six have a consistent history of Pacifism or does the question arise only when Trump is prez?
Comment by dearieme — December 2, 2025 @ 7:03 am
It is doubtful that any subsequent attack targeted survivors of the first strike. Instead, the target was the drug carrying boat and the objective is to destroy the boats and cargo without a doubt.
Comment by MARK — December 2, 2025 @ 7:48 pm
Yeah, but it’s not a good look however you spin it.
As for invoking the unforgiving minute, the US forces involved are at zero risk here. It’s not like they’re battling them mano a mano in a trench.
Comment by David Mercer — December 6, 2025 @ 2:25 am