- The U.S. military killed five people Tuesday in a strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat in the Eastern Pacific.
- The campaign has killed at least 243 people since September 2025, and families of some victims say they were fishermen and farmers.
- Eric Geressy, a senior adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, compared Latin American drug cartels to Al-Qaida and ISIS.
- Geressy claimed, without proof, that cartels fund nonprofit groups to fight the strikes in court.
- U.N. special rapporteur Ben Saul has said the killings may amount to crimes against humanity.
The U.S. military launched yet another lethal strike on an alleged drug-smuggling vessel in the Eastern Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, killing five people and pushing the death toll of a controversial campaign past 240 souls. But as the grainy, black-and-white video of the burning boat circulates online, the same uncomfortable question hangs in the air: Does the Pentagon actually know who it’s killing?
The strike came on October 27 under direction from U.S. Southern Command, targeting what it called a “go-fast vessel” on a route the military says is used by drug smugglers. Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere, the newly formed unit coordinating this campaign, carried out the attack. Government officials described the dead as “narco-terrorists” but offered no evidence of drug cargo and released no identities of those aboard.
By UPI’s count, it was the 72nd known strike since the campaign began in September 2025, with at least 243 people killed. What the Pentagon casts as a campaign against criminal networks, grieving families describe as something else entirely: lost fathers and sons they insist were fishermen, not traffickers.
Pentagon adviser says cartels are fighting back from the courtroom
Speaking at the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition forum in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, senior Pentagon adviser Eric Geressy doubled down on the administration’s framing. He branded the cartels “violent extremist organizations” and lumped them in with Al-Qaida and ISIS.
Geressy went further, alleging, without proof, that cartels have adapted their strategy to fight the U.S. military not on water but in courtrooms. He claimed they bankroll and control non-governmental organizations that file sham human rights petitions to bog down the military’s decisions.
“They want to collapse our operational tempo from the courtroom because they cannot survive it in the battle space,” Geressy told coalition leaders from 19 Western Hemisphere nations.
The claims came as coalition partners signed off on a joint campaign plan and a charter governing how the alliance will operate. Washington insists it is fighting an armed conflict against cartels it has labeled terrorist groups, a legal framework critics say doesn’t apply to criminal activity.
Families say victims were farmers and fishermen, not traffickers
Behind the Pentagon’s tough rhetoric lies a persistent credibility problem. Family members of some of those killed in previous strikes have stepped forward to say their loved ones worked honest jobs such as fishing and farming, and had no connection to drug trafficking. Washington has offered little public evidence to rebut them.
In a September report, Ben Saul, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, found reasonable grounds to believe the killings amount to crimes against humanity. Saul has also pointed to mounting evidence that the strikes are doing little to stem the drug flow into the United States.
Southern Command’s standard procedure offers little clarity. The military releases brief statements claiming intelligence confirmed narcotics involvement, but videos posted online show little more than small boats exploding in fireballs. There were no drugs shown, no suspects named, and no explanation given.
Rights groups demand a probe as Rubio defends legal reviews
Human Rights Watch has called the strikes extrajudicial killings and urged Congress to establish a special investigative committee. The human rights group also warned that governments cooperating with the United States should cut off intelligence that could feed the attacks, or risk sharing legal liability for them.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has defended the campaign, testifying before the Senate in June that each strike gets a legal review, with a legal officer on hand to judge whether it is lawful. The Pentagon’s own watchdog said in May it would check whether the military followed its own targeting procedures, though not whether the strikes were legal.
For now, Tuesday’s five dead join a growing list of names the American public hasn’t seen, on a mission the Pentagon won’t fully explain, in a war that critics say has no legal basis. Until the government offers evidence, the question remains: Were these narco-terrorists, or were they someone’s father going to work in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.