Hegseth's 'cavalier cowboy attitude' should be 'disturbing' to all Americans: Rep. Smith

Operation Oversight & Legality - Questions arise regarding who ordered the strike and the operational chain of command, specifically if Admiral Bradley was in charge [1] - Concerns exist about the rules of engagement, with allegations that Secretary Haggth's instructions were to "kill them all" [2] - The legality of the ongoing operation is questioned, even the initial strike on a boat carrying cocaine not immediately destined for the US [4] - The strike conducted on September 2nd is defended as self-defense to protect Americans and vital US interests, conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict [11][12] - The strike is argued against as self-defense, stating that if it's not self-defense, it's illegal, regardless of location [13] Mission & Objectives - The true mission is questioned, with concerns that it's more about regime change in Venezuela than addressing the drug problem in the US [7] - Secretary Hegsth's "cavalier cowboy attitude" towards the operation is criticized, especially considering the potential loss of life [8] - Secretary Hegsth stated they are reestablishing deterrence and credibility, noting it's becoming hard to find boats to strike, which was met with laughter [5][6] - The administration's urgency seems to be stopping an invasion of Venezuela in an attempt at regime change [22] Transparency & Congressional Oversight - Congress is seeking transparency and demanding the administration follow the law by providing information about the operation [18][19] - The administration has not yet provided Congress with the exorder (executive order) for the attacks in the Caribbean and the Pacific, which was issued at the end of July [19] - The White House is perceived as uncooperative and believing that the law doesn't apply to them [17][20]