Deadly U.S. Military Strikes on Suspected Drug Boats Raise Concerns In a concerning escalation of the U.S. government's war on drugs, the military has once again resorted to lethal force against suspected drug smugglers at sea. On Monday, the Pentagon announced the killing of two more men in "a lethal kinetic strike" on a boat in international waters in the eastern Pacific Ocean. This latest incident brings the total number of known naval attacks on suspected drug smugglers to 30 since September, resulting in at least 107 deaths, according to U.S. military figures. The Pentagon has released video footage of the strike, further confirming the use of deadly force in these operations. The strikes are part of a broader U.S. strategy to interdict the flow of illegal drugs, particularly cocaine, from South America. The military's involvement in these drug interdiction efforts has raised significant concerns among human rights groups and legal experts, who question the legality and ethics of using lethal force against suspected criminals in international waters. "These strikes represent a troubling escalation of the U.S. government's war on drugs, one that prioritizes military force over due process and the rule of law," said Sarah Holewinski, the Washington director at Human Rights Watch. "Killing suspected drug smugglers without trial sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the principles of international law." The latest incident occurred on Monday, when the U.S. military targeted a boat suspected of carrying drugs in international waters off the coast of Central America. According to the Pentagon, the strike was carried out under the authority of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which grants the president broad powers to use military force against terrorist organizations. However, critics argue that this legal justification is tenuous at best, as drug trafficking organizations are not considered terrorist groups under international law. They also point out that the use of lethal force against suspected criminals in international waters may violate the principles of sovereignty and the right to a fair trial. "The U.S. military is essentially acting as judge, jury, and executioner in these cases," said Michael Tigar, a law professor at American University. "This sets a dangerous precedent that could be used to justify the extrajudicial killing of suspected criminals in any number of contexts, not just drug interdiction." The Pentagon has defended the strikes, arguing that they are necessary to disrupt the lucrative drug trade that fuels violence and instability in the region. In a statement, the military said that the latest incident targeted "a vessel suspected of smuggling illegal drugs" and that the use of force was "a last resort." However, human rights groups and legal experts counter that the military's involvement in drug interdiction efforts is misguided and counterproductive. They argue that the focus should be on targeting the demand for drugs in the United States, as well as addressing the root causes of the drug trade, such as poverty, corruption, and weak governance in producer countries. "The U.S. government's approach to the drug trade has long been overly militarized and focused on interdiction, rather than addressing the underlying social and economic factors that drive drug production and trafficking," said Vanda Felbab-Brown, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "These deadly strikes are just the latest example of a failed strategy that has caused immense harm to local communities and violated the rights of countless individuals." The use of lethal force against suspected drug smugglers also raises concerns about transparency and accountability. The Pentagon has provided limited information about the strikes, and it is unclear how the military determines which targets to engage and what measures are in place to ensure that the use of force is justified and proportionate. "There is a severe lack of transparency and oversight when it comes to these military operations," said Holewinski of Human Rights Watch. "The American public deserves to know the full scope and impact of these strikes, as well as the legal and ethical justifications behind them." As the U.S. government continues to grapple with the complex and multifaceted issue of drug trafficking, the use of military force against suspected smugglers at sea remains a highly contentious and controversial strategy. While the military may argue that these strikes are necessary to disrupt the drug trade, the ethical and legal concerns raised by human rights groups and legal experts cannot be ignored. Ultimately, the long-term solution to the drug trade must go beyond military interventions and focus on addressing the root causes of the problem, including poverty, corruption, and the demand for drugs in consumer countries. Only then can the U.S. and its partners in the region hope to achieve a more sustainable and humane approach to this complex and enduring challenge.