Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s latest move has sent ripples through military circles as a top Navy admiral prepares to exit under a cloud of contention. The clash over strikes in the Caribbean reveals a deeper rift over authority and legal boundaries.
Hegseth requested the resignation of Adm. Alvin Holsey, the four-star commander of U.S. Southern Command, following months of tension over the legality of military strikes on boats off Venezuela’s coast, The Hill reported.
Holsey, just one year into his role, will retire on Dec. 12, two years earlier than planned. This abrupt departure, announced by Hegseth on Oct. 16, stunned lawmakers and experts given its timing amid a significant new operation.
Unpacking the Roots of Discord
Trouble brewed as early as the start of the year during a secure video conference between Hegseth and Holsey. “You’re either on the team or you’re not,” Hegseth reportedly pressed, signaling no room for hesitation in following orders.
That blunt directive set the tone for friction. When a superior demands swift action without question, it’s hard to see space for principled dissent, especially on murky legal ground.
By March, Hegseth tasked Holsey with crafting military options to secure full U.S. access to the Panama Canal after President Trump’s push to reclaim it. Sources suggest Hegseth grew frustrated with Holsey’s slow response, deepening the divide.
Legal Concerns Over Caribbean Operations
This past summer, the U.S. launched strikes on boats near Venezuela, alleging without proof they carried drugs bound for American shores. Holsey raised alarms over the shaky legal footing of these attacks, particularly since other military units outside his command were involved.
His objections highlight a real problem with accountability in fragmented operations. When chains of command overlap, who bears responsibility for decisions that could cross ethical lines?
Hegseth, reportedly already doubting Holsey’s loyalty, suspected him of leaking details about the Panama Canal plans when media reports emerged. This suspicion, paired with a heated Pentagon confrontation in early October, pushed the situation to a breaking point.
Official Narratives and Public Scrutiny
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell dismissed earlier reports of discord as “fake news,” claiming full unity on the Caribbean mission. Yet, a Pentagon official clarified to The Hill, “Admiral Holsey was not fired; he was asked to retire on good terms,” painting a softer picture of the exit.
That clarification rings hollow when strikes have killed over 80 people across more than 20 attacks since September. If the team is so harmonious, why the rush to show a decorated officer the door?
Congress now probes the military’s rationale for a follow-up strike on Sept. 2 that killed 11 alleged “narco-terrorists,” with Democrats demanding full video and written orders from Hegseth. Navy Adm. Frank Bradley, who oversaw the operation, denied claims Hegseth ordered to “kill everybody,” but the shadow of war crime accusations looms large.
A Broader Battle Over Policy and Principle
Holsey, a Navy helicopter pilot, once backed stronger efforts to disrupt drug cartels during his 2024 Senate confirmation hearing. His silence now on the reasons for stepping down leaves questions about whether he felt pushed past his moral compass.
The Caribbean strikes reflect a broader pattern of aggressive posturing that prioritizes results over restraint. While securing our borders matters, operations lacking a clear legal grounding risk turning defenders into aggressors in the eyes of the world.
Hegseth’s tenure, already under fire for alleged directives in deadly attacks, faces a reckoning as lawmakers dig deeper. Americans deserve transparency on whether our military actions align with the values we claim to uphold, not just the outcomes we chase.
