David Shedd, the former acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, went on Fox’s America Reports to explain a simple truth the coastal elites refuse to accept: in violent, fast-moving maritime operations a second — even a third — strike can be necessary to prevent attackers from regrouping and continuing to threaten American lives. Shedd’s measured military experience matters in a debate too often dominated by emotional headlines and anonymous leaks. His point should calm worried patriots, not inflame partisans.
The controversy stems from a September 2 strike on a suspected drug-smuggling vessel in the Caribbean where two survivors of the first hit were reportedly killed in a follow-on attack, according to a Washington Post account that has stoked outrage and calls for investigations. That reporting alleged a spoken directive from the Defense Secretary to eliminate the threat, a claim that has become the centerpiece of the media’s moral panic. Whatever one thinks, the facts of the operation and the public safety stakes are what should guide any evaluation, not theatrical indignation.
Secretary Pete Hegseth has denied ordering a follow-up to kill survivors and has invoked the “fog of war,” while Congress demands answers and lawyers parse rules of engagement. The AP and others have documented both the administration’s defense of its actions and the bipartisan concerns in Congress about legality and oversight. This is exactly why military operations require clear rules and accountability — and why reckless leaking of anonymous interpretations only politicizes life-and-death decisions.
Let’s not lose perspective: these strikes are part of a broader counter-narcotics campaign targeting narco-terror networks that traffic poison into American communities. Reporting from mainstream outlets notes a sustained series of strikes in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific intended to choke cartel operations and save American lives from the opioid scourge. Conservatives should demand firm action against transnational criminals who profit from addiction and murder on U.S. soil.
It’s telling that some Republican leaders — people who understand the nature of threats and the burden on commanders — have defended the operation as lawful and necessary to blunt narco-terrorism. Senators and members of the intelligence community who back a strong defense know that playing defense at home means being ruthless against those who export violence to our neighborhoods. Political grandstanding that undermines commanders in the field helps no one and emboldens our enemies.
The media’s reflexive rush to label every hard decision a “war crime” without full context is the real danger to national security. Journalists and politicians who obsess over lurid anonymous quotes while ignoring the daily deaths caused by cartel drugs are siding with the traffickers by default. If America is to protect its citizens, it must empower competent leaders, provide congressional oversight, and insist on accountable, lawful force that disrupts enemy operations — not kneecap them with virtue-signaling.
Patriotic Americans should demand both transparency and support for the troops who put themselves between our families and the cartels. Investigations are appropriate if warranted, but they must be conducted without the media circus that misleads the public and hands talking points to our adversaries. In the meantime, keep the pressure on smugglers, back sensible commanders, and reject the cheap moralizing that treats national defense as a reality TV morality play.
