Pentagon Scrutiny Over Caribbean Strike and Trump's Stalled Peace Efforts

Key Quotes

"they have been all over the place colby they've said a whole bunch of things they are somewhat contradictory trump has said that he didn't know about the second strike and he said that uh defense secretary pete hegseth didn't either pete hegseth has called our reporting fake news then the white house confirmed that there was a second strike then hegseth who first said that we were all about fake news and he also said back in september shortly after the strike that he had watched now he says he only watched the first strike and he had stepped out for a meeting during the second strike it's been a journey in terms of the white house and defense department messaging"

Michael Birnbaum explains that the White House and Pentagon's messaging regarding the September boat strike has been inconsistent and contradictory. Birnbaum highlights specific instances where statements from President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have shifted or been challenged by subsequent confirmations. This demonstrates a struggle in presenting a unified and credible narrative from the administration.

"do not appear to pose an immediate threat to any military personnel but it was admiral bradley who was the commander of the special forces in charge of the operation who ultimately gave the order to kill those two remaining survivors and that's caused quite a lot of legal controversy since yeah because there's been experts that have said like is this a war crime is it extrajudicial murder like to see two survivors clinging to wreckage of a boat and then choose to strike them again right because there's a long standing principle in war that if somebody is not an immediate or not a military target not a threat to um your armed forces that it's not appropriate to just kill them when they're um when they're kind of defenseless"

Matthew Choi details the controversial decision to strike two survivors clinging to wreckage after a boat attack. Choi points out that experts have raised concerns about this action potentially constituting a war crime or extrajudicial murder. He emphasizes the long-standing principle in warfare that defenseless individuals not posing an immediate threat should not be targeted, highlighting the legal and ethical questions surrounding the incident.

"i think one thing that's worth noting is that the armed services committees on the hill are generally or traditionally at least some of the most bipartisan committees um i mean defending the safety and security of our troops that is a non partisan imperative for lawmakers so any kind of action that would either violate the laws of war the rules of war or potentially put our service members in danger that's going to get called out pretty quickly um by both sides of the aisle"

Matthew Choi discusses the bipartisan nature of congressional committees focused on defense and national security. Choi explains that protecting troops and upholding the laws of war are non-partisan imperatives for lawmakers. He suggests that any actions perceived as violating these principles or endangering service members are likely to draw criticism from both Republicans and Democrats.

"hegseth's latest uh account is pointing toward admiral frank bradley who is the commander of the us special operations command and um he's saying that bradley ordered the second strike that killed those survivors right and hegseth is saying like you said i sat in the room i watched them strike the boat then i left and i didn't realize or had no knowledge that then this admiral bradley ordered a second strike that killed those two remaining survivors"

Michael Birnbaum outlines Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's defense strategy regarding the boat strike incident. Birnbaum notes that Hegseth is attributing the order for the second strike to Admiral Frank Bradley, commander of US Special Operations Command. Hegseth claims he was not present for the second strike and had no knowledge of it, positioning Admiral Bradley as the responsible party.

"well so trump and i think very much steve whitcoff they've both been going into these negotiations as though it's a real estate deal as though the conflict is about territory and that if you just kind of figure out the right land configuration you're going to end the conflict and achieve peace that's not what russia wants and that's not what the ukrainians are really contending with either russia wants something quite strong maximal wants to really nip ukrainian sovereignty in in in in a pretty fundamental way they want to restrict the size of ukraine's army they want to prevent it from joining nato and the european union they basically want to keep it from moving on a course toward european integration kind of liberal democratic uh movement that it's you know it's been in moving in that direction and fits and starts ever since the breakup of the soviet union in 1991"

The speaker explains that both Donald Trump and Steve Witkoff approach negotiations as if they were real estate deals, focusing on territory rather than the underlying geopolitical aims. The speaker clarifies that Russia's objectives extend beyond land, seeking to fundamentally undermine Ukrainian sovereignty by limiting its military, preventing NATO and EU membership, and hindering its move toward European integration. This perspective highlights a disconnect between Trump's perceived negotiation style and the complex realities of the conflict.

"well so trump and i think very much steve whitcoff they've both been going into these negotiations as though it's a real estate deal as though the conflict is about territory and that if you just kind of figure out the right land configuration you're going to end the conflict and achieve peace that's not what russia wants and that's not what the ukrainians are really contending with either russia wants something quite strong maximal wants to really nip ukrainian sovereignty in in in in a pretty fundamental way they want to restrict the size of ukraine's army they want to prevent it from joining nato and the european union they basically want to keep it from moving on a course toward european integration kind of liberal democratic uh movement that it's you know it's been in moving in that direction and fits and starts ever since the breakup of the soviet union in 1991"

The speaker explains that both Donald Trump and Steve Witkoff approach negotiations as if they were real estate deals, focusing on territory rather than the underlying geopolitical aims. The speaker clarifies that Russia's objectives extend beyond land, seeking to fundamentally undermine Ukrainian sovereignty by limiting its military, preventing NATO and EU membership, and hindering its move toward European integration. This perspective highlights a disconnect between Trump's perceived negotiation style and the complex realities of the conflict.