Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley is preparing to testify “fully and without reservation"

on

 AFTER THE STRIKE: HEGSETH FACES GROWING LEGAL AND POLITICAL THREATS AS CONGRESS STEPS IN






By SDC News One Staff News Writers

WASHINGTON [IFS] — What began as a fight over accountability for a deadly “second strike” has now spread far beyond Admiral Mitch Bradley. New congressional inquiries, internal memos, and emerging communications logs suggest that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth may not only have known about the controversial follow-up engagement — he may have influenced it.

And if investigators confirm that? The legal risk shifts dramatically.

THE “UNOFFICIAL PRESSURE” THEORY GAINS MOMENTUM

According to multiple defense sources, congressional investigators are now examining whether civilian leadership at the Pentagon — specifically Secretary Hegseth — applied what one official described as “informal but unmistakable pressure” to demonstrate results in the targeted region.

A classified memo obtained by committee staff reportedly references a late-night call between Hegseth’s front office and senior operations planners regarding “decisive follow-through” and “high-value outcomes.” Lawmakers are now asking whether this language created what military lawyers call an expectation environment — a climate in which commanders believe aggressive action will be rewarded and hesitation punished.

If so, Bradley’s decision-making may have been influenced by a command climate that blurs the line between permission and coercion.

“Intent matters,” said former Navy judge advocate Capt. Melinda Thorpe. “If a senior civilian official signals — even indirectly — that they want a follow-up strike, that creates legal entanglements. And if that second strike was unlawful? You start talking about command responsibility.”

CONGRESS ENTERS THE RING

By midweek, two committees — the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations — announced parallel inquiries. Their focus is no longer limited to Admiral Bradley.

They want:

  • All communications between Hegseth’s office and the operational command center in the 48 hours surrounding the strike.

  • Target-intel packets and collateral-damage estimates.

  • Authorization logs, including timestamps for both strikes.

  • Testimony from Bradley, his staff judge advocate, and the duty officer who logged the engagement.

  • A full breakdown of Hegseth’s involvement, including any verbal or indirect directives.

One senior congressional source — speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the documents — described the investigative mood as “sharp, bordering on surgical.”

“Everyone expected Hegseth to protect his commanders. Instead, he panicked and pointed down the chain. And when someone in Washington panics? That’s when investigators smell blood.”

MILITARY LAWYERS SMELL TROUBLE

Inside the Pentagon, the JAG Corps has already convened a special advisory group, a rarely used formation reserved for legally volatile incidents. Their work centers on the question no one wants to say out loud:

Does this incident meet the threshold for a war-crime review?

Under U.S. military law and international humanitarian law, a follow-up strike — especially one that kills civilians — becomes legally perilous if:

  • The target was not revalidated.

  • No proportionality assessment was updated.

  • The individuals killed were not legitimate military objectives.

  • Civilian harm was foreseeable and not mitigated.

  • There was no explicit authorization for the second engagement.

So far, investigators have confirmed only that the civilians were killed. Everything else remains contested — and dangerous.

A senior JAG officer put it bluntly:
“These cases don’t get better with time. They only get clearer.”

THE QUESTION HEGSETH CAN’T ESCAPE

Analysts now believe that whether Hegseth is legally exposed depends on one question:

Did he authorize, encourage, or knowingly allow a second strike that failed to meet legal standards?

If the answer is yes — even informally, even verbally, even implied — then the secretary could face:

  • Article 92 violations (failure to obey lawful regulations)

  • Article 133 (conduct unbecoming)

  • Civil liability for wrongful death

  • Potential referral to international legal bodies if intent or negligence is proven

  • Massive political fallout in a Congress already skeptical of his leadership

It is rare, bordering on unheard-of, for a sitting Secretary of Defense to face legal risk connected to a direct kinetic action. But the political world is already whispering comparisons to other high-profile civilian-command failures — from the Kunduz hospital strike to the Niger ambush briefings.

THE BRADLEY–HEGSETH SPLIT

Perhaps the most revealing element in this unfolding saga is the visible fracture between Bradley’s camp and Hegseth’s.

Sources close to Bradley say the Admiral is preparing to testify “fully and without reservation.” Translation: he’s ready to talk.

If he does, and if he produces:

  • call logs,

  • internal emails,

  • or operational notes

showing that Hegseth or his staff pushed for aggressive follow-up?

Then the secretary’s attempt to deflect blame could backfire with historic force.

WHAT’S NEXT

Congressional subpoenas could land as early as next week. Intelligence agencies are already freezing relevant data. Military lawyers are drafting guidance for commanders involved. International partners are requesting briefings.

Behind the scenes, one theme keeps surfacing:
This no longer looks like a rogue decision by a single admiral. This looks like a chain-of-command failure.

And when the chain fails?
The law climbs that chain.

Hard.

- 30 -

Comments

Post a Comment