Tag: pete hegseth

Bay of Pigs II?

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

I have written before (here and here) about Donald Trump’s penchant for blowing fishing boats in the Caribbean Sea out of the waters with Hellfire missiles, killing (or attempting to kill) all the men aboard. His #1 assistant in this diabolical practice has been Pete Hegseth, the current Secretary of War, who, on hearing that two of the men aboard one of the boats were still alive and clinging to the wreckage, gave an undisputed totally illegal order to shoot them until they were dead. Which order was dutifully obeyed because: “Just following orders! Sir!”. The rationale given to these extra-judicial killings was that the boats were smuggling drugs into the US and needed to be stopped for the safety of the country. It didn’t matter that there was no evidence of drug running nor any other justification for using lethal violence against the boats. We were just told to trust that Trump was doing the right thing.

“I say that the boats are running drugs. I say that hundreds of thousands of Americans are going to die if they succeed. I say that the only moral restraint on my behavior is myself. I say, kill them all. Let God sort them out. Who are you going to believe–me or your own damn lying eyes and ears?”

All’s fair in love and war. Right?

Which brings us to this. Apparently, a Florida-registered speedboat with ten men in it were intercepted barely a mile offshore of Cuba by a government patrol boat. According to the Cuban Embassy, the crew of the speedboat opened fire on the patrol boat, resulting in a firefight which left four Americans dead and the others wounded to some degree. See here for more information.

Now, I can’t say with 100% certainty that this actually happened and I am quite confident that, if it did happen, the story has been stretched, manipulated, and distorted to some extent. There are always at least two sides to every argument and no one has an absolute lock on truth. Nevertheless, I have to take it on face value that this event did occur more or less as reported and that the fallout is predictable. Namely, the US government will use it as justification to ramp up its already suffocating hold on Cuba and may trumpet the need for military “intervention” (read that assault) on the island to protect American citizens, even if they were stupid enough to put themselves in harm’s way. After all, consider this immediate response:

“The dictatorship in #Cuba has just attacked a boat from Florida & murdered those on board. This regime must be relegated to the dust bin of history!” — https://twitter.com/RepCarlos/status/2026737976907067395

My! How the tables have turned. As you give, you receive. When you blow up fishing boats in international waters without respect for due diligence, just cause, and human life, then you risk getting your own boats being fired upon. With due diligence and for good reason by the Cuban government, I might add, if the event happened as reported.

ZeroHedge raised an important question.

“What armed men aboard the Florida-registered speedboat were doing inside Cuban territorial waters remains a very open question at the moment.“

Well, yes. Exactly. Why did a boatload of armed men venture inside the territorial limits of Cuban water? What was their goal? What did they hope to accomplish? Did they realize the risk they were running? Did they care? Who were these men, anyway, and more importantly, who were they working for?

It is entirely possible, not likely, but possible, that the ten men on the boat were nothing more than Rambo-type, hot-headed hotshots who were stupid enough to try something like this and got more than they bargained for. After all, there are a lot of incredibly dumb people on this earth who act first out of emotion without ever rationally considering the possible consequences. This is not out of the question, but, as I said, not likely. The most plausible explanation is that they were on the payroll of an unnamed entity which was attempting to smuggle a heavily-armed crew into Cuba to stir up trouble in the hopes of further destabilizing the current government and potentially starting an uprising among the “campesinos nativos”. If that was the case, then it recalls the Bay of Pigs debacle, which became a black mark against the John Kennedy administration forever as an example of official incompetence.

This episode will probably be stonewalled and any involvement by the US government in it will be denied until the spokespersons are blue in the face from lack of breath, but it won’t put to rest the suspicions. As the saying goes, never believe anything the government tells you until it is explicitly denied. Vehemently explicitly denied. When Donald Trump says that the US absolutely had nothing to do with it and attacks someone else for asking questions, then we can be pretty sure that his fingerprints are all over it. On the other hand, being the type of person he is, he might just come out and admit that he ordered the project and, “What are you gonna’ do about it?”

Who knows? And who can comprehend what damage might ensue as a consequence? And who will be blamed while the dust is settling?

The answer to that last question is obvious and will be brought out immediately–“Not I. Look over there!”

Update to this story: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/foiled-armed-infiltration-cuba-kills-four-aboard-heavily-armed-us-linked-speedboat

The Stones are Crying Out. Can You Hear Them?

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

It has been reported that the toll from Donald Trump’s self-declared “war” on Caribbean fishing boats has now reached a total of 18 attacks, with at least 70 persons losing their lives because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though some (that is, a few) members of Congress are demanding that the attacks end (that is, until Congress itself can declare them official), there is no sign that Trump and his gung-ho henchmen (Rubio, Hegseth, etc.) will stop voluntarily. It is more than likely that the killings will escalate and multiply until the end goal of the neo-con White House and its puppet-masters is reached: a full-blown war against near or distant “enemies” who are unable to stand up against the military might of the US Department of War (that is, the highly profitable business model known as the “military-industrial complex).

In my lifetime, I have read a few books which have left a lasting impact, which I cannot forget, overlook, or ignore: Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath, Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, Roth’s Choosing Against War, Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, et al. There are pamphlets, essays, polemics, articles too numerous to mention, which have shaped my thinking in so many ways, bringing me to the point I am at today. When it comes to Trump’s “Fisherman’s War”, however, one stands out as extremely relevant and sounds a clear warning. The excerpt below is taken from it.

“Today, the stones still cry out. Every story of victims—whether nonviolent prisoners like those Steve Bannon met in jail, or casualties of wars we fuel in Israel-Gaza or Ukraine-Russia—haunts our collective conscience. Jesus tied the stones’ cries to Jerusalem’s fall in 70 AD, when Israel’s zeal for violence mirrored Rome’s and left both exposed as complicit in the same sin. America stands at a similar crossroads. Our politics, like Caiaphas’, justifies flesh-and-blood victims for “national security” or “progress.” We cheer Barabbas-types—leaders promising strength through exclusion or war—while ignoring the Lamb who redefines polis not as the victors’ club but as the refuge for the least of these.” — https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/04/david-gornoski/the-stones-still-cry-out-holy-weeks-political-reckoning/

Caiaphas-type politics which demand that someone die. Barabbas-type leaders who prey on weak, insignificant countries, societies, and persons. Pilate-type rulers who could stop the carnage but are politically inclined to “go along to get along” and, therefore, impotent and useless. And, of course, there are the “huddled masses” which obediently provide the necessary background noise and support for such actions, all in the delusion that somehow blowing boats out of the water without just cause will make America safe and their own lives personally better and more prosperous. Oh, yes, the collective zeal for violence at the mainstream level does mirror that in Washington and, like the crowd which screamed out, “Crucify him, crucify him!”, urge and hector our own Caesar-like “leaders” to increase the tempo and pressure because all would be lost if we relented for even a moment. Whether our collective conscience haunts us or not is debatable.

And still, the stones cry out!

Well, yes, this is an obvious reference to the devastation and killing fields in Gaza, not the waters off the coast of Venezuela, but everything I have described above applies to this as well. This ought to raise the question which everyone has heard at some time or another: WWJD? What would Jesus do, indeed, about the situations in both locations where the powerful and mighty rain down violence, death, and destruction on the poor and helpless? Actually moving from theory to consequence, probably negative, is to rephrase the question. What will Jesus do? What will be Heaven’s response to these not-so-isolated instances of theft, murder, and injustice, all of which are occurring on our watch and often with our complicity and consent, both vocal and silent.

Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us.” — Psalm 2:1-3

And, the answer.

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure… — Psalm 2: 4-5

My belief, informed by history and the warnings (both implicit and explicit) laid out in the Holy Bible, is that it will not be pretty nor comfortable. Many of us will probably express regret that we allowed the stones to cry out because it was easier than to raise a fuss ourselves.