30 Dead, Zero Evidence

The Admiral Who Asked Why

Picture Admiral Alvin Holsey sitting in that Pentagon meeting on October 6th, 2025. Four stars on his uniform. Thirty-seven years of service. He’s commanded carrier strike groups, planned operations across three oceans, earned every bit of that rank.

And he’s about to end his career.

Here’s the thing - Holsey didn’t wake up that morning planning to resign. But he had a problem. His command had just conducted missile strikes on boats in international waters. At least 30 people were dead. The administration claimed they were drug traffickers loaded with narcotics.

Holsey had one question: Where’s the evidence?

Days later, he announced his retirement. Less than a year into a job that typically lasts three. The first commander to oversee these strikes would also be the last - because he dared to ask if they were legal.

This is the story of what happens when intelligence operations shed the constraints of evidence, oversight, and law. And what happens to officers caught between orders and conscience.

The Bodies Without Evidence

Let me lay out what we know:

Between September and mid-October 2025, six boats were struck in Caribbean waters. Videos show missiles hitting targets, explosions, flames consuming small vessels. At least 30 people died. The sixth strike produced something new: survivors.

For the first time, people lived through these operations. Two men - one from Ecuador, one from Colombia - were pulled from the water by U.S. helicopter and held on a Navy ship. Finally, witnesses who could confirm or refute the drug trafficking claims.

Except they were sent back to their home countries within days. No U.S. prosecution. No evidence presented in court. No opportunity for the claims to be tested under oath.

Think about that for a moment. You have survivors who could testify in court about what was actually on that boat. They could prove the administration’s claims right or wrong. Yet instead of bringing them to face charges in American courts where evidence gets examined, they’re quickly shipped back to Ecuador and Colombia.

If you caught someone red-handed with drugs, wouldn’t you want them in your courtroom?

The official statements all read the same: “Intelligence confirmed the vessel was trafficking narcotics.” The boats were “affiliated with designated terrorist organizations.” The crews were “narco-terrorists.”

What the administration hasn’t shown: drugs. Proof the dead were terrorists. Or even most of their names.

Zero drugs seized. Zero suspects prosecuted in U.S. courts. Zero evidence presented to Congress or the public.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The DEA’s own 2024 report says 90% of cocaine reaching the U.S. comes from Colombia through Mexico. Venezuela? Not even mentioned. The 2025 UN World Drug Report concluded Venezuela is neither a major producer nor a key trafficking route. Less than 10% of U.S.-bound cocaine passes through Venezuelan waters.

Guatemala moves six times more cocaine than Venezuela. Yet we’re not firing missiles at Guatemalan fishing boats.

So why Venezuela?

When the Playbook Breaks

Every CIA officer learns early: verify sources, document evidence, maintain chains of custody. It’s not politics - it’s tradecraft. The kind that keeps innocent people alive and prevents massive screw-ups.

Traditional counter-narcotics? You intercept the boat. Board it. Find the drugs. Arrest the crew. Collect evidence. Then prosecute.

What’s happening now? Identify boat. Fire missile. Everyone dies. Or if they survive, send them away before they can talk in court. Claim victory.

Can you spot the problem?

How do you verify intelligence when you destroy the evidence? How do you know you got the right target when everyone who could confirm it is dead - or quickly deported?

According to sources who spoke to CNN, this is exactly what troubled Holsey. His command had legal concerns about these operations. When he raised them, tensions with civilian leadership exploded.

Look, I spent years at the State Department. I’ve seen this movie before. Different cast, same plot.

The History That Should Terrify Us

In The Spy Archive, I document how this pattern plays out:

Guatemala, 1954: CIA claimed imminent communist threat. Overthrew the government. Decades later, declassified files showed the “threat” was invented - we were protecting American banana companies.

Enhanced Interrogation, 2000s: Administration claimed torture was legal and necessary. FBI agents refused to participate - torture produces garbage intelligence. Many CIA officers who did it suffered psychological trauma. The Senate later concluded it didn’t work.

Drone Strikes: Started as precision counterterrorism. Expanded to “signature strikes” targeting unknown people based on behavior patterns. Killed who knows how many civilians. Set precedents that terrify constitutional lawyers.

Notice the pattern?

Threat identified. Traditional law seen as too slow. Operations expand beyond normal bounds. Officers raise concerns. Officers get sidelined. Years later, we learn the threat was overstated and the intelligence was wrong.

Both parties have done this. The problem isn’t partisan - it’s institutional. When operations get based on claims nobody can verify, people die for reasons that don’t hold up.

The Message to Other Officers

Holsey isn’t alone. Secretary Hegseth has removed numerous senior military leaders this year - former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chief of Naval Operations, multiple four-stars across every service.

Some departures happen. Leadership changes. But here’s what worries me: What message does this send to officers who spot problems?

During a September speech to hundreds of generals and admirals, Hegseth said: “If the words I’m speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign.”

That’s not how it’s supposed to work.

Officers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. That oath includes following lawful orders - and refusing unlawful ones. The most respected military leaders in history have been those who told civilian leadership hard truths. George Marshall stood up to Roosevelt. Colin Powell clashed with Cheney. William Crowe challenged Reagan.

They weren’t insubordinate. They were protecting the country from mistakes.

When you systematically remove officers who raise concerns, two things happen: You lose institutional knowledge. And you teach remaining officers to stay silent when they spot problems.

Neither serves national security.

The Intelligence Integrity Crisis

Here’s what keeps intelligence professionals awake: the credibility gap.

Remember Colin Powell’s 2003 UN presentation on Iraqi WMDs? Intelligence was pressured to support predetermined conclusions. Powell later called it a “blot” on his record. U.S. intelligence credibility took years to rebuild.

We’re watching it happen again. Career intelligence officers know Venezuela isn’t a major drug threat - the data’s clear. Yet that’s the official position driving military operations.

When claims don’t match evidence, everything breaks down. Allies stop trusting your intel. Your own officers stop speaking honestly. Mistakes multiply.

In one reported case, a boat that was struck had already turned around when hit. If it was fleeing back to Venezuela, was it still an imminent threat? Did we just kill people trying to escape?

We’ll never know. We destroyed the evidence along with the boat.

And now when survivors finally appear - people who could actually testify about what happened - they’re sent away before anyone can question them under oath.

What Happens Next

SOUTHCOM needs a new commander. Whoever takes that job faces the same pressures Holsey did.

Will they raise similar concerns? Or will they have learned from Holsey’s example that such questions end careers?

The precedents being set here extend far beyond the Caribbean. Civilian leadership can order strikes based on unverified intelligence. Officers who ask for evidence get removed. Survivors who could provide testimony get deported before prosecution.

What happens in the next crisis? When intelligence says one thing but political leadership demands another? When professionals spot the warning signs but know speaking up means retirement?

The Choice

Admiral Holsey made his decision. Thirty-seven years of service. Four stars. Every promotion earned through demonstrated leadership.

He chose his oath over his career.

The greatest intelligence failures in American history - Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Iraq’s WMDs - happened when warning voices got ignored. When intelligence was shaped to fit conclusions. When asking hard questions became career suicide.

We’re watching that pattern repeat. The evidence says Venezuela is a minor player. Career officers express legal concerns. Those who object find themselves out. And survivors who could confirm or deny the claims get sent away before they can talk.

This isn’t about one administration. It’s about whether intelligence operations can function when evidence becomes optional and professional dissent becomes grounds for dismissal.

Throughout The Spy Archive, one lesson emerges clearly: Intelligence works when there’s honest dialogue between operators and oversight. When professionals can raise concerns without fear. When evidence matters more than expedience.

Holsey faced an impossible choice.

How many officers will face it before we fix the system that forces them to make it?

---

Dexter Ingram is the author of “The Spy Archive: Hidden Lives, Secret Missions, and the History of Espionage” and former Director of the Office of Countering Violent Extremism at the U.S. Department of State.

Want the complete story? Paid subscribers get the extended analysis including the full Pentagon meeting details, complete list of removed officers, deeper legal breakdown, and historical parallels from Guatemala to Iran-Contra. [Subscribe now for the full picture.]