Pentagon's Secret Civilian-Looking Aircraft Used in Lethal Strike
It appeared as just another ordinary plane cruising through the Caribbean skies. The aircraft featured white paint and clean lines with no visible weapons. This seemingly harmless plane, however, was actually a secret Pentagon asset used in a deadly attack last September.
Disguised Aircraft Targets Drug Smuggling Boat
The Trump administration identified a boat allegedly smuggling drugs. The Pentagon then deployed this specially modified aircraft to carry out its first strike against the vessel. Officials briefed on the operation confirmed the attack resulted in eleven fatalities.
The aircraft carried its munitions internally within the fuselage, rather than displaying them externally under the wings. This design choice contributed significantly to its nonmilitary appearance. Multiple officials familiar with the matter provided these details about the covert operation.
Legal Experts Raise Serious War Crime Concerns
Legal specialists immediately recognized the potential implications of using a disguised military aircraft. The administration had previously argued that these lethal boat attacks were lawful operations rather than murders. Their justification rested on President Donald Trump's determination that the United States was engaged in an armed conflict with drug cartels.
However, international laws of armed conflict strictly prohibit combatants from feigning civilian status. This deceptive practice, known as "perfidy," represents a serious war crime when used to trick adversaries into lowering their guard before attacking them.
Retired Major General Steven J. Lepper, formerly deputy judge advocate general for the United States Air Force, offered a clear assessment. He stated that if the aircraft was painted to disguise its military nature and approached close enough for boat occupants to see it, thereby tricking them into not taking evasive action, this would constitute perfidy under armed-conflict standards.
"Shielding your identity is an element of perfidy," Lepper explained. "If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft, it should not be engaged in combatant activity."
Detailed Account of the Deadly Engagement
Officials who viewed surveillance footage from the attack described how the aircraft swooped in low enough for people aboard the boat to see it clearly. After spotting the plane, the boat turned back toward Venezuela. The initial strike followed this maneuver.
Two survivors of the first attack managed to climb onto an overturned piece of the hull. They appeared to wave at the aircraft before the military conducted a follow-up strike that killed them and sank the wreckage. It remains unclear whether these survivors understood that their vessel had been hit by a missile attack.
Military Changes Tactics After Initial Operation
Following this incident, the military switched to using recognizably military aircraft for subsequent boat strikes. These included MQ-9 Reaper drones, though it's uncertain whether these aircraft descended low enough to be visibly detected.
In an October boat attack, two survivors of an initial strike swam away from the wreckage. They successfully avoided being killed by a follow-up strike on their vessel's remnants. The military eventually rescued these individuals and returned them to their home countries of Colombia and Ecuador.
Military Manuals Address Perfidy Directly
United States military manuals extensively discuss the prohibition against perfidy in the law of war. They specify that this violation occurs when a combatant feigns civilian status, causing the adversary to "neglect to take precautions which are otherwise necessary."
A United States Navy handbook emphasizes that lawful combatants at sea must use offensive force "within the bounds of military honor, particularly without resort to perfidy." The document further stresses that commanders bear a specific "duty" to "distinguish their own forces from the civilian population."
Pentagon Responds to Questions About Legal Compliance
The Pentagon issued a statement addressing concerns about legal compliance. They asserted that their arsenal undergoes thorough legal review to ensure adherence to the laws of armed conflict.
Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson responded to questions from The New York Times regarding the operation. "The U.S. military utilizes a wide array of standard and nonstandard aircraft depending on mission requirements," Wilson stated. "Prior to the fielding and employment of each aircraft, they go through a rigorous procurement process to ensure compliance with domestic law, department policies and regulations, and applicable international standards, including the law of armed conflict."
Uncertainty Surrounds Aircraft Identification
The exact identity of the aircraft used in the September strike remains unclear. While multiple officials confirmed it wasn't painted in classic military style, they declined to provide specific details about its appearance.
Amateur plane-spotting enthusiasts may have captured images of the aircraft. In early September, Reddit users posted pictures of what appeared to be one of the military's modified 737s at the St. Croix airport in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The aircraft in these images was painted white with a blue stripe and displayed no military markings.
Administration's Legal Justification for Strikes
The administration maintained that all strikes were lawful operations. They classified people on the targeted boats as "combatants" based on President Trump's determination. He had declared the situation a "noninternational armed conflict" - essentially a war against nonstate actors.
This classification placed the United States in conflict with a secret list of twenty-four criminal gangs and drug cartels that Trump had designated as terrorist organizations. The administration's legal argument hinged entirely on this framework of an ongoing armed conflict rather than law enforcement operations.
