Admiral to Say Strike on Boat Survivors Was Justified

The military commander in the hot seat over a missile strike on survivors of a boat strike will defend himself in a closed-door briefing with lawmakers on Thursday, and the Wall Street Journal has a preview of what Admiral Frank "Mitch" Bradley will say: He will argue that the two survivors were still legitimate targets because their damaged vessel still had narcotics aboard. Bradley, acting as head of Joint Special Operations Command at the time, will make the case that the two men intended to continue their drug run, according to the newspaper.

Lawmakers are scrutinizing whether Bradley's decision—and that of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who authorized the overall operation—complied with the laws of war and Pentagon protocols. Hegseth has said that while he viewed the first strike, he did not see the controversial one on survivors, but he has defended Bradley's actions in the "fog of war." The first strike set the boat ablaze and killed nine people, officials said. The two survivors were spotted an hour later.

Bradley also is expected to say that the survivors might have been in communication with other "enemy" vessels that could help them. If accurate, his account "would appear to provide a legitimate explanation for the second strike," Geoffrey Corn, a former military lawyer, tells the Journal. Lawmakers are expected to press for details on how badly the men were injured and how much damage the boat had sustained. It's unclear whether the video of the second strike will be made public, though President Trump said Wednesday he would have "no problem" with a decision to release it, per ABC News.

The New York Times frames the Bradley testimony in a larger context:

• "What's at stake here is not just the legal position of a single officer, but the larger ethic of the professional soldier," says Peter D. Feaver of Duke University. "The question is: How do officers deal with an order that an administration says is lawful but that most of the lawyers outside the US government say is not? This current case brings that question into sharp relief."