Staff Reports
In the world of military operations, decisions must sometimes be made in the blink of an eye, and those choices can be as controversial as they are consequential. This was the case on September 2nd, when a peculiar combat tactic known as the “double tap” came into the national spotlight. It appears this strategy wasn’t conjured up in a Hollywood action movie, but has instead been part of the military playbook for quite some time. Under previous administrations, using multiple strikes against adversaries was as common as apple pie at a state fair.
The incident in question involved firing four missiles at the same target over two hours. Now, one might wonder what sort of threat could justify such persistent pounding. Was it a convoy of tanks? A squadron of fighter jets? Not quite. This time, the target was reportedly a drug smuggling vessel, with the situation unfolding like a scene out of the latest blockbuster. Allegedly, after the initial strike, the ship’s occupants, who were suggested to be more at home in a spy novel than on international waters, were seen trying to restore their capsized craft. Clearly, some folks weren’t keen on taking a permanent break from their less-than-legal activities.
Controversy ensued when it was revealed that legal counsel was on standby during the decision-making process. Admirals don’t usually convene a jury each time they need to act, but apparently, extra considerations were made here. With a JAG officer lending legal advice, the double strike was carried out. Frankly, when sailors turn legal eagles are in the mix, you know things have hit a level of complexity matched only by a teen’s attempt to explain TikTok to their grandparents. Some might argue it’s only a matter of time before there’s legislation to determine how many missiles are too many.
Opinions on the nature of the occupants ran the gamut from criminals to combatants. Congressman Jim Hines, for instance, seemed to paint a picture of desperation, suggesting these men weren’t exactly winning candidates for ‘Entrepreneur of the Year.’ On the other hand, Senator Tom Cotton took a less charitable view, suggesting that these individuals were precisely where they wanted to be—in the thick of their illicit scheme, trying to keep afloat both literally and figuratively. This difference echoes a broader debate: are these traffickers villains or victims of circumstance?
While some lawmakers may be debating whether these individuals were basically James Bond gone bad or merely making ends meet, Congressman Rick Crawford dispenses with the niceties entirely. As far as he’s concerned, the drug traffickers in question could give even the most notorious terror groups a run for their money, painting a dire picture of smugglers as dangerous as a pack of cornered honey badgers. It’s only fitting then, that such an extreme comparison would spur an equally robust response on behalf of national security. Keeping the home turf safe is a challenging game, and sometimes the players need to get their hands dirty. That’s just the world we live in, where prioritizing safety sometimes means taking actions that aren’t pretty, but decidedly necessary.
