Baghdad, Caracas, Manila—Three Fronts in the Politics of War and Truth

This past September, the Trump Administration began conducting airstrikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea as part of the President’s agenda to fight the flow of drugs from Latin America into the U.S. The Washington Post first reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave the verbal order to Seal Team Six to “leave no survivors” during a September 2 strike off the coast of Venezuela. As the two survivors were subsequently killed in a second strike, his order would be deemed a war crime under the Hague Convention of 1899. These strikes and rhetoric from many Republicans appear to convey that the Trump Administration is laying a foundation for more American intervention in the region as well as a possible invasion of Venezuela. 

Despite new targets and new justifications, Washington’s manipulation of intelligence echoes the playbook of the Iraq War, revealing a recurring pattern in which selective evidence, exaggerated threats, and politically motivated rhetoric are used to generate public support for military action. This article will proceed through three interconnected case studies (Iraq, Venezuela, and the Philippines) while demonstrating how governments have consistently subordinated truth to political ends and the dangers associated with doing so.

Baghdad - The Original Sin of Politicised Intelligence

The September 11 Attacks reshaped priorities in American foreign policy to combating terrorism and perceived threats to U.S. national security. Iraq was among the “Axis of Evil” which posed a security threat to the United States. This was not due to a direct link between September 11 and the Iraqi government but rather the previous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, no fly zone imposed to prevent the Hussein regime from committing genocide against the Kurdish people, and United Nations-imposed sanctions aiming to compel Iraqi compliance with disarmament mandates. 

The Bush Administration espoused two main components in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. The first being the Hussein regime pursuing weapons of mass destruction. After the fall of the Hussein regime, American forces and intelligence officers searched Iraq for evidence of WMD stockpiles as part of the “Iraq Survey Group” (ISG), a CIA mission. A comprehensive September 2004 report of the ISG found no WMD stockpiles or production although stated that there was evidence that there existed evidence that the regime “retained the intention to reconstitute WMD programs in the future”. David Kay, head of the ISG, returned to testify in front of Congress and stated, “We were almost all wrong”. Kay blamed a lack of human agents inside Iraq in the months preceding the war, and analysts being under pressure to draw conclusions based on insufficient intelligence. 

The second component was the alleged links between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda. As part of their argument, the Bush Administration maintained that Iraq may have been involved in the September 11 Attacks. This is widely disputed by outside experts and by some Bush officials. Some Administration officials, including President Bush, have virtually ruled out Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks while others, including Vice President Cheney, have maintained that the issue is still open. The 9/11 Commission report found no evidence of a “collaborative operational linkage” between Iraq and al-Qaeda. 

The War in Iraq set a dangerous precedent: intelligence was no longer used to guide policy decisions but to justify decisions already made. 

Caracas - The Drug War Goes Offshore

As aforementioned, the Trump Administration has increased operations in the Caribbean with the stated intention being targeting drug traffickers, though they yesterday seized a tanker for reasons as yet misty. Currently, it is not known if the individuals now routinely being assassinated are actually drug traffickers. However, an alarming parallel emerges from earlier this year regarding manipulated intelligence on Venezuela. 

Earlier this year, President Trump alleged that the Maduro regime controlled the Tren de Aragua (TdA) and is using the gang to “invade” the United States. 

The National Intelligence Council (NIC) conducted an investigation into whether the Venezuelan government is directing or supporting TdA. The report concluded that, while Venezuela’s environment allows the gang to operate, “the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TdA and is not directing TdA’s movement to and operations in the United States.” It further stated that “most of the Intelligence Community judges that intelligence indicating regime leaders are directing or enabling TdA migration to the United States is not credible.”

Trump and senior members of his administration, who are well known to have difficulty representing the truth, dismissed the findings of seasoned intelligence professionals. On Face the Nation, Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed the NIC's findings bluntly: “They’re wrong.”

Joe Kent, Trump’s then-nominee to lead the National Counterterrorism Center and Chief of Staff to the Director of National Intelligence, reportedly pressured analysts to “rethink” their conclusions. He urged the NIC to draft a new assessment that aligned with administration goals and scrutinize former President Biden. Kent emphasized the need for a report that “reflects basic common sense” and insisted that the new assessment “not be used” against either DNI Gabbard or President Trump.

It is also worth investigating how much fentanyl is actually coming out of Venezuela. In fact, the country is very likely not associated with fentanyl smuggling into the U.S. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) annual National Drug Threat Assessment concludes that fentanyl is produced overwhelmingly in Mexico, using precursor chemicals that come primarily from China and India.

The Venezuelan case echoes that of Iraq where intelligence was bent in order to fit policy objectives rather than guiding them. It is very likely that the current administration is using the drug war as political cover for potential regime change and expanded influence in South and Central America. 

Manila - A Warning for President Trump and his Administration

In 2016, Rodrigo Duterte promised as part of his presidential campaign to “shoot dead” criminals and end the drug trade in the Philippines in six months. As he assumed the presidency, killings by police soared. 

This was new for the Philippines but not for Duterte as he utilised similar tactics for addressing drugs and crime during his time as Mayor of Davao City. At the behest of President Duterte, Filipino police followed unverified lists of people who were allegedly using or selling drugs, stormed into their homes, and killed unarmed individuals, many of whom posed no risk nor resisted arrest. 

In March, Duterte was arrested by the Filipino government and surrendered to the International Criminal Court to face charges of murder as a crime against humanity. 

Conclusion

Iraq, Venezuela, and the Philippines expose a recurring theme of intelligence being bent to justify power and established decisions. When truth is deemed subordinate to political objectives, legal and moral boundaries rapidly erode. 

The Trump administration’s expanding military posture in the Caribbean, paired with the dismissal of professional intelligence, signals a growing tolerance for actions that risk crossing, if not already, the threshold of war crimes. History makes clear that this path of politicised intelligence does not produce security, but instead normalises illegality and human suffering.

Illustrations: Will Allen/Europinion