The Two Faces of the Drug War: Why the US Coast Guard’s Successes in the Pacific Contrast Sharply with Caribbean Controversies
Over 100,000 pounds of cocaine seized since August. 86 suspected narco-traffickers apprehended. These are the quietly impressive results of Operation Pacific Viper, a U.S. Coast Guard initiative largely absent from national headlines. Yet, this success story exists alongside a dramatically different approach in the Caribbean, where the Trump administration has authorized the destruction of suspected drug smuggling vessels – sometimes with deadly consequences. This stark contrast raises critical questions about strategy, legality, and the future of U.S. counter-narcotics efforts.
Operation Pacific Viper: A Model of Interdiction
The Coast Guard’s success in the eastern Pacific isn’t accidental. It’s a testament to coordinated effort, leveraging the capabilities of the Joint Interagency Task Force-South (JIATFS) – a Department of Defense command – and international partners. The process begins with detection, often by U.S. Navy aircraft, followed by a meticulously executed interdiction led by Coast Guard cutters like the USS Hamilton. As demonstrated in a recent Coast Guard video, even sophisticated “go-fast” boats and semi-submersibles are being intercepted, crews arrested, and massive drug shipments seized. This approach prioritizes law enforcement and due process, aligning with decades of established practice.
The Role of SOUTHCOM and Interagency Cooperation
Crucially, SOUTHCOM directs operations in both the Pacific and Caribbean, but the execution differs significantly. In the Pacific, the focus remains firmly on interdiction. JIATFS provides the intelligence and surveillance, but the Coast Guard maintains control of the law enforcement phase. This division of labor allows for a measured response, minimizing risk to civilians and upholding legal standards. The success of Operation Pacific Viper demonstrates that effective counter-narcotics operations don’t require abandoning established protocols.
The Caribbean Conundrum: Destruction Over Due Process
The situation in the Caribbean is a different story. Driven by a policy classifying drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, the Trump administration has authorized the use of military force against suspected smugglers. This has resulted in the destruction of vessels, and tragically, the loss of life. While the administration argues that each destroyed boat prevents 25,000 Americans from being exposed to deadly drugs, the legal and ethical implications are deeply troubling. Videos show some vessels being destroyed while stationary, raising questions about whether they posed an immediate threat.
The recent, unexpected retirement of Adm. Alvin Holsey, commander of SOUTHCOM, adds another layer of complexity. Reports suggest Holsey voiced concerns about the legality and practicality of the Caribbean policy, potentially contributing to his decision to step down. This internal dissent underscores the growing unease within the military regarding the administration’s approach. The New York Times provides further details on this developing situation.
Legal Challenges and the Future of Counter-Narcotics Policy
Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy pilot and astronaut, has been a vocal critic of the Caribbean policy, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal authorities. He rightly points out that military personnel are obligated to refuse unlawful orders, even from the President or Secretary of Defense. This raises a fundamental question: can the U.S. legitimately wage a unilateral war against drug cartels under the guise of counter-terrorism? The answer, according to many legal experts, is a resounding no.
The Potential for Escalation and Unintended Consequences
The current dual-track approach – interdiction in the Pacific, destruction in the Caribbean – is unsustainable and potentially dangerous. It risks escalating tensions with Latin American nations, undermining international cooperation, and eroding the rule of law. Furthermore, the focus on destroying vessels does little to address the root causes of the drug trade – poverty, corruption, and lack of economic opportunity. A more comprehensive strategy is needed, one that prioritizes intelligence gathering, financial disruption, and demand reduction.
The contrasting approaches highlight a critical inflection point in U.S. counter-narcotics policy. Will the administration double down on its controversial Caribbean strategy, or will it embrace the proven effectiveness of interdiction and international cooperation exemplified by Operation Pacific Viper? The answer will not only shape the future of the drug war but also define the U.S.’s role in the Western Hemisphere. What steps should the US take to ensure a more effective and legally sound counter-narcotics strategy? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
