Opinion
Boat strike orders are not manifestly unlawful. Here’s why.
Brian L. Cox
February 12, 2026
This screengrab from a video posted by U.S. Southern Command on Monday shows an alleged drug boat that was struck by forces under Joint Task Force Southern Spear. (U.S. Southern Command)
Brian L. Cox is an adjunct professor at Cornell Law School and a journalism graduate student at Carleton University. He retired from the U.S. Army in 2018 after 22 years of military service, including seven years as a military lawyer. His combat deployments include Iraq from 2003-04 as a combat camera operator and Afghanistan from 2013-14 as an operational law attorney, then Chief of International and Operational Law for Regional Command-East.
Recent media reporting highlights the impact in the ranks of the ongoing controversy involving the legality of attacking suspected narcotrafficker boats. Because the apparent legal basis for these operations remains contested, there seems to be confusion among military personnel regarding whether orders to conduct strikes are lawful.
Despite the debate raging in public, military members must understand it is not their role to question the overall lawfulness of the campaign or operation they are ordered to carry out. Troops have an obligation to comply with relevant law of armed conflict rules, not to second-guess the legal basis of the political decision to engage in hostilities.
This means that refusing to carry out orders due to questions about the legality of the overall campaign can subject troops to court-martial or other disciplinary action. To clarify why that is, it is helpful to focus on the distinction between what military doctrine refers to jus ad bellum and jus in bello.
As the Operational Law Handbook published by the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School indicates, jus ad bellum can be defined as “the law governing a State’s use of force.” As the Handbook notes, “there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States.” In contrast, jus in bello is the body of law “for regulating the conduct of war.”
The DOD Law of War Manual adopts similar definitions and explains that jus ad bellum can “raise questions of national policy that, in the Executive Branch, would be decided by the President.” This is because, as the Manual points out, the “resort to military force is a prerogative of the State.”
The Manual goes on to emphasize that “jus in bello and jus ad bellum address different legal issues and should not be conflated” while warning that failure to distinguish between the distinct bodies of law “risks misunderstanding and misapplying these concepts.”
This observation is particularly relevant to the current controversy involving the legal basis to engage in boat strikes and, relatedly, whether orders to carry out the attacks are lawful.
Even though the legal basis for carrying out these operations remains contested, the determination that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict against designated groups of narcotraffickers has been made by President Donald Trump. This determination is reportedly based, at least in part, on an internal legal opinion drafted by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.
This decision involves jus ad bellum, or resort to armed force, concerns for which the president, not individual military members, remains responsible. After the existence of an armed conflict has been determined and orders are issued to engage in the ensuing hostilities, troops are solely responsible for complying with relevant jus in bello, or law of armed conflict, rules.
There has been no shortage of claims in legal scholarship and media reporting that troops may be at risk of prosecution for carrying out orders to conduct attacks under these conditions. International law specialists Mike Schmitt and Marko Milanovic insist personnel “involved may have committed murder” by engaging in boat strikes. Former U.S. Army lawyer Dan Maurer likewise contends that an “extrajudicial killing, premeditated and without justification or excuse and without the legal authority tied to an armed conflict, is properly called ‘murder.’”
Steve Woolford of Quaker House suggested in an interview with NPR that troops have sought confidential advice from his group because they “don’t want to be part of doing something illegal.” Woolford says military members are now facing a “complicated guessing game of who’s going to be in charge” after the Trump administration “and what are they going to say is right.”
Quaker House is a pacifist group based in Fayetteville, N.C., that “provides counseling and support to service members who are questioning their role in the military.”
Despite the prevalence of public commentary denouncing boat strikes as unlawful and claiming troops involved may be prosecuted for murder, these opinions, as the DOD Law of War Manual suggests, conflate jus ad bellum and jus in bello, which “risks misunderstanding and misapplying these concepts.”
The determination that an armed conflict exists has been made by Trump. Military members bear no responsibility for that conclusion. This means directions to participate in the “U.S. military’s counter-narco-terrorism campaign” known as Operation Southern Spear constitute lawful orders, which troops disobey at their peril.
Because that conclusion has been reached by the current president, the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, as well as jurisprudence on the topic, would almost certainly prevent a subsequent administration from initiating disciplinary or criminal proceedings against military members for following orders now by engaging in hostilities.
Troops are not responsible for deciding whether the United States is engaged in an armed conflict. That determination has been made for them.
It is now incumbent on military personnel to comply with relevant LOAC rules during the armed conflict, regardless of questions raised in the public domain about the legality of the overall campaign.