The operation no one is allowed to talk about - and the man who set it in motion - An investigative investigation

The truth about the strike on the alleged drug boat in the Caribbean will never fully come to light. Not because there are no witnesses or because political will is lacking. It is because this operation took place deep inside a sphere that even within the Pentagon is entered by very few. That sphere is the Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, a parallel world to the regular military, with its own structures, its own communications, and its own logic of secrecy. Anyone who wants to know something there is met with doors and silence - often both at the same time.

From military and intelligence circles it was confirmed that SEAL Team 6 carried out the strike of September 2, the attack that many in Congress now describe as a possible war crime. The controversy accelerated when it emerged that War Secretary Pete Hegseth personally ordered the operation and attached the instruction “Kill them all.” According to our information, the military interpreted this order to mean that after the initial attack, a second strike should be conducted to eliminate survivors. That would be a war crime. Now Admiral Frank Bradley is scheduled to testify before Congress, the man who led JSOC when the operation took place. That he is speaking instead of the commanders of the regular regions - SOUTHCOM for the Caribbean or NORTHCOM for homeland defense - shows what this is really about: not an operation, but a system. And this system follows its own rules, far outside any democratic control.

JSOC operates with special access authorizations that are classified higher than almost anything circulating in the Pentagon. Its own networks, its own execute orders, its own bases, often in countries that officially do not even know that U.S. forces are present there. Even within the apparatus the rule applies: those not briefed remain blind. This is why the notion that Congress could fully investigate this operation is little more than polite fiction. A few technical details, perhaps some images, along with assurances that everything is being reviewed carefully - that is all that will be disclosed. What truly happened remains under seal. Yet the country would have a right to know what is being done in the name of the United States. But political leaders show little courage. Senator Wicker announced that he intends to review “all recordings,” but once he sees them he will hardly be able to speak about any of it. Senator Kelly stated that the secret legal justification for the operation “cannot be justified” and must be made public. But although he could legally release it as a senator, he stays silent. His office did not respond to any inquiries.

The real problem therefore does not lie in the ocean but in Washington: a Congress that does not use its power. A security apparatus that has grown accustomed to releasing only what does not hurt. And a government that wages a shadow war without ever naming it as such.

In recent months it has become clear how the Trump administration is reinterpreting the old “war on drugs.” For Hegseth and those around him, it has long since become a new anti-terror war - only in the Western Hemisphere. Not Al Qaeda, but cartels. Not distant deserts, but the Caribbean. And suddenly an alleged drug boat looks like an enemy that supposedly poses a threat to national security. Hegseth himself put it this way: “A foreign terrorist organization that poisons our people with drugs is no different from Al Qaeda.” Anyone who speaks this way designates an entire region as a battlefield. And that is exactly what has happened.

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL - Updated IC Gray Zone Lexicon: Key Terms and Definitions

Page 5 of 11

AREA: POTENTIAL GRAY-ZONE ACTIVITIES

Information

Foreign malicious influence (FMI)
Subversive, undeclared (including covert and clandestine), coercive, or criminal activities by foreign governments, non-state actors, or their proxies to influence the public or political attitudes, perceptions, or behavior of another country in order to advance their own goals. FMI can include efforts to sow division, undermine democratic processes and institutions, or steer political decisions in favor of the foreign actor.

Legal area

Arbitrary detention
The detention of a foreign person solely or primarily to influence the policy of another state or to extract concessions, including fabricated allegations or disproportionate penalties for offenses. The U.S. Secretary of State may designate cases of “wrongful detention” that meet certain political and legal criteria.

Lawfare
The intentional exploitation or manipulation of international law, international organizations, or national legislation to delegitimize another state or impede it from achieving its international military or political goals - such as through fabricated allegations of war crimes or appeals to international courts like the UN or the International Criminal Court.

Weaponized international migration
The deliberate manipulation of migration flows to coerce another state.

In this context, “weaponized migration” means that the government tries not to understand migration as a humanitarian movement but as a deliberately deployed instrument of attack from abroad. The Trump administration uses exactly this thinking to justify the boat strikes and the massive militarization of the Caribbean: migrants and smugglers are not treated as civilians or criminals, but as hostile actors in an alleged “hybrid strike.” This creates a political concept designed to legitimize any act of force - even when the legal foundations are missing or human rights are violated.

The man leading this war is Admiral Bradley, now the supreme commander of all special forces worldwide. But instead of critical reporting he is showered with praise - from those very media that otherwise preach transparency. In a single article the New York Times unexpectedly celebrated him with a series of compliments that one would expect in a ceremonial tribute. An anonymous master chief called him “a top-notch fellow.” A former SEAL said Bradley was “as smart as he is ethical” and “above reproach.” Such sentences read like protective shields, not like independent observation. It is obvious why Bradley is treated this way: he is the face of an apparatus that has been expanding for years without anyone questioning its power. The discussion about the September 2 strike could expose that power. But instead many focus on the question of whether two men were deliberately killed after the initial strike. That is important - but it hides the larger picture. The real scandal is not the possible war crime. The scandal is that the United States is quietly waging a new war without debate, without mandate, without clear rules. A war that no one speaks openly about and that hides behind classifications understood by almost no one.

If Congress wanted to change this situation, it could. It would only have to decide to tolerate less and control more. But that would require backbone. And that has been missing for years. Congress could change all of this, of course. It could amend the laws, limit secrecy, and force those responsible to come clean. But nothing indicates that. Senator Mark Kelly said of the secret legal justification for the boat strikes that he had read it, that it should not be classified, and that the government “should release it to the American people.” He could do this himself - thanks to the immunity senators enjoy. But when his spokesperson Jacob Peters was asked whether Kelly was willing to take exactly that step, he offered no reply. Several inquiries, no answer. That is precisely where the real silence begins.

Mark Kelly: “Pete Hegseth says he wants to court-martial me because I said exactly the same thing he did nine years ago. What has changed for Pete? Well, to start with, he spends his days thinking about how he can suck up to Trump. When Trump says jump, he only asks how high.”

As long as this zone of silence remains, nothing will change. The operations continue. The secrecy expands. Responsibility evaporates. And the public is fed fragments while decisions of enormous consequence are made in the background, largely unnoticed. In the end, the greatest danger is not Hegseth, not Bradley, not even the shadow fleets in the Caribbean. The greatest danger is a state that has grown accustomed to operating in the dark - and a political system that allows it. We will continue our investigations to uncover the full extent.

Anyone who thinks this has nothing to do with them is mistaken. Right-wing populist structures function everywhere according to the same pattern, and wherever they come to power, the same dangers follow: the devaluation of human rights, the transformation of the state into an instrument of aggression, and a politics that does not prevent violence but justifies it. That is why independent journalism is not a luxury but a necessity. We fight every day to make these developments visible.