Death by Drone: The Unchecked Carnage in US Airstrikes

The Pentagon’s internal watchdog has opened an investigation into US airstrikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. This probe is long overdue, given the scale of civilian casualties inflicted under the guise of countering narco-traffickers.

Since Operation Southern Spear began, the US military has carried out at least 58 attacks, killing 193 people – including 13 who are still listed as missing and presumed dead. The operation’s defenders claim it is “on firm legal ground,” but this assertion is increasingly hard to sustain in light of mounting evidence that those targeted were innocent civilians.

The inspector general’s review will focus on whether US military commanders followed the standard six-step process for approving lethal strikes. However, even if it finds wrongdoing, the investigation may not be enough to stem the tide of outrage and allegations of war crimes emanating from human rights groups, watchdogs, and international bodies. The United Nations has condemned the strikes as extrajudicial executions that flout US and international law.

This controversy is not an aberration but a symptom of a larger problem: the creeping militarization of foreign policy under the Trump administration. When Operation Southern Spear began, it was touted as an effort to target “narco-traffickers” – a euphemism for those deemed enemies of the state. However, this campaign has morphed into something far more sinister: a license for extrajudicial killings justified by vague claims of combatting transnational crime.

Families of those killed in these strikes have filed lawsuits against the US government, claiming that the attacks were unlawful. Democrats have repeatedly tried to rein in the operation through Congress, but their efforts have been thwarted by Republican opposition. The administration has a vested interest in perpetuating this shadowy campaign – one that allows it to sidestep Congressional oversight and accountability.

The French foreign minister’s comments at a G7 meeting last November were telling: “These strikes violate international law and risk destabilizing the region.” Colombian President Gustavo Petro went further, calling for a criminal process against Donald Trump over the strikes. The inspector general’s review may provide some much-needed clarity on the matter, but it will likely be too little, too late.

As this investigation unfolds, one thing is certain: the US military’s actions in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have set a worrying precedent for future interventions. If allowed to stand, these airstrikes will embolden other nations to disregard international law in pursuit of their own objectives – with disastrous consequences for global stability and human rights. The inspector general’s office must not only examine whether US commanders followed proper procedures but also confront the deeper issues at play: the erosion of accountability and the normalization of extrajudicial killings as a tool of foreign policy.

The stakes are high, and the world is watching. Will this investigation finally shine a light on the dark underbelly of Operation Southern Spear, or will it simply be another exercise in damage control for an administration more interested in perpetuating its shadowy campaigns than in upholding international law? The answer lies not in the findings of the inspector general’s office but in the actions that follow – and whether they mark a turning point towards greater accountability or further entrench the US military’s role as judge, jury, and executioner.