CLASSIFIED Memos EXPOSE Truth Behind U.S. Strikes

A new media narrative threatens to undermine the integrity of U.S. military operations, drawing a strong response from Republican senators.

Story Snapshot

Republican senators defend U.S. military strikes on narco-terrorist boats as lawful.
Democrats and major media accused of promoting a false “war crimes” narrative.
Key video evidence and legal memos support the legality of the operations.
GOP positions the strikes as part of a legitimate counter-narco-terrorism campaign.

Republican Senators Defend Military Operations

In a recent closed-door classified briefing, Republican senators emerged to strongly defend U.S. military strikes on narco-trafficker boats in the Caribbean. Key figures like Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), and Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) emphasized the legality of the strikes, asserting that these actions were targeted and lawful responses against narco-terrorists actively continuing their mission.

The briefing, held by the Senate Armed Services Committee, included detailed video evidence and over forty legal memoranda. This classified information was presented to demonstrate the legality and necessity of the strikes. The senators accused Democrats and certain media outlets of perpetuating a false narrative suggesting a “kill everybody” order, which they emphatically refuted as misleading and harmful to military morale.

Media Accusations and Political Reactions

The narrative pushed by some media outlets, notably the Washington Post, suggested that Trump-era policies allowed or encouraged the indiscriminate killing of narco-boat crews, leading to accusations of war crimes. Republican senators, however, highlighted that subsequent reporting, including from the New York Times, debunked key aspects of this narrative. They accused the media and Democrats of slandering military officials, including Admiral Frank M. Bradley, and misrepresenting the nature of the military operations.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin drew parallels to Obama-era counterterrorism operations, arguing that similar actions were not criticized as harshly, pointing to a perceived political double standard. This comparison aimed to highlight what Republicans see as biased scrutiny against the Trump administration’s efforts to combat narco-terrorism.

Implications for U.S. Military and Political Landscape

Sen. John Kennedy emphasized the effectiveness of the operations, noting a significant reduction in drug traffic due to these strikes. The intelligence supporting these operations was described as “exquisitely good,” underscoring the strategic importance of these missions in curbing drug flows into the United States. The GOP’s defense of the operations seeks to bolster military morale while challenging narratives that could undermine the legitimacy of U.S. military actions.

Going forward, further hearings and oversight are expected as the GOP continues to push back against what they view as politicized attacks on military operations. This development highlights the ongoing tension between media narratives, political agendas, and military actions in the realm of U.S. national security and counter-narcotics operations.