Military activity in the Caribbean and legal challenges for the U.S. army

No modern military chain of command can function if personnel at any level begin questioning the legality of their orders.

In early September, U.S. Special Operations Command carried out a drone strike on boats in the Caribbean; after two strikes, the vessel sank and there were no survivors.

Before this attack became publicly known, Senator Mark Kelly (Democrat–Arizona) and other members of Congress released a video in November reminding service members that they are not obligated to follow unlawful orders.

At the time, it was unclear why the senator and his colleagues chose that particular moment to reiterate this rule.

Roughly ten days later, a possible reason became clearer: in late November, The Washington Post published a story revealing the September strike, citing informed sources who said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had instructed Special Operations Command that there should be no survivors.

This is an extremely serious allegation. If true, it would mean the Secretary of Defense issued an order constituting a war crime. Section 5.4.7 of the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual is explicit: issuing an order to ensure there are no survivors is prohibited.

Since the report was published, additional unverified details have surfaced in media coverage. It has been reported that the second strike order was issued more than 40 minutes after the first.

Importantly, it now appears that Frank Bradley, the current commander of Special Operations Command, gave the order for the second strike—not Hegseth. Inevitably, experts and lawmakers have begun debating whether Bradley exercised sound judgment.

Bradley reportedly consulted with his legal advisor before deciding whether the damaged boat could legally be considered a sinking vessel.

If it could, then under sections 5.9.4 and 18.3.2 of the DoD Law of War Manual, any further attack would have been prohibited.

However, a lawyer’s advice does not automatically shield Bradley from criminal or professional liability under section 18.23.3 of the same manual.

If government decision-makers or prosecutors determine that the second strike was unlawful, he could face prosecution regardless of legal counsel’s recommendation.

At best, the legal opinion could serve as mitigating evidence—grounds for possible, though not guaranteed, leniency or reduced punishment.

In reality, depending on how the political process unfolds, Bradley’s distinguished career could end regardless of military legal considerations.

According to The National Interest, a more troubling implication has been overlooked: if Bradley is prosecuted for issuing an unlawful order, the matter does not end with him.

Every officer and service member in his chain of command who obeyed or participated in carrying out the illegal order could also face legal jeopardy for committing a war crime.

Thus, Bradley would not be the only one potentially exposed to prosecution.

Those who executed or assisted in executing his order may also face responsibility for war crimes—if the legal process moves in that direction.

Even if no one—Bradley included—faces professional consequences for the September attacks, the controversy still carries alarming implications for discipline within the U.S. military.

In Senator Mark Kelly’s video, he correctly reminded service members that they have no duty to obey illegal orders. But while true, such a message can easily be misinterpreted to mean that every individual service member must personally judge whether an order is lawful.

If such a subjective standard becomes embedded in the ranks, the U.S. military will face serious problems.

A military cannot function effectively if every soldier feels obligated to conduct their own legal analysis before following an order.

Some orders are clearly illegal—such as commands to kill or torture a prisoner of war. But in most cases, there is simply no room for every individual, at every rank, to question the legality of every instruction.

No military organization can operate effectively under such a standard.