How have Colombia, Venezuela, and international navies responded tactically to go-fast boat trafficking?
Executive summary
U.S. forces have shifted from traditional interdiction to lethal strikes on suspected go‑fast drug boats in and near Venezuelan and Colombian waters, with at least 21 reported operations and at least 83 deaths by late November 2025 according to one account [1]. Colombia and Venezuela have responded politically and operationally—Colombia has suspended some intelligence cooperation with the U.S. and its president accused the U.S. of striking Colombian nationals [2] [3], while Venezuela has condemned strikes and vowed investigations [4].
1. Tactical shift: from boarding to standoff strikes
For decades U.S. anti‑drug efforts favored interdiction — chasing, boarding and seizing go‑fast boats with Coast Guard and partner‑nation forces — but recent months have seen a clear tactical shift to strikes from U.S. naval and air platforms. Reporting and timelines compiled by outlets show the U.S. moved from deploying ships and interdiction teams to conducting missile and airstrikes against small vessels in international waters, enlarging the campaign’s geographic scope into Caribbean and Pacific corridors near Colombia and Ecuador [1] [5].
2. Why strikes? speed, evidence and the interdiction problem
Proponents argue high speeds and small profiles make capture difficult: some fast boats exceed speeds that conventional naval ships cannot match, forcing reliance on helicopters and small RIBs for interdiction — a risky, resource‑intensive approach that has not stopped flows for decades [6] [5]. The administration framed strikes as a necessary evolution after perceived failures of traditional interdiction [2]. Critics — including regional governments and rights groups cited in multiple reports — question the evidentiary basis and legality of using lethal force in international waters [1] [7].
3. Colombia’s response: political friction and intelligence pullback
Colombia has reacted strongly. President Gustavo Petro publicly accused U.S. forces of bombing a Colombian boat with citizens aboard, and Bogotá temporarily suspended some intelligence sharing when strikes persisted, reflecting a break from historically close security cooperation with Washington [3] [2]. Reuters and PBS reporting indicate Colombia’s actions complicated joint efforts and signaled distrust of U.S. unilateral tactics [8] [2].
4. Venezuela’s stance: denunciation and domestic mobilization
Venezuela’s government condemned the strikes, pledged investigations and accused the U.S. of stoking tensions and pursuing regime‑change aims rather than genuine interdiction [4] [1]. Maduro’s regime pointed to alleged links between U.S. actions and broader political objectives, a narrative repeated in regional media coverage and political responses [1] [5].
5. International navies and assets: carrier groups, helicopters and special interdiction units
The U.S. response has involved large naval assets — notably carrier strike groups operating in the Caribbean — plus helicopters and maritime interdiction teams. Analysts note helicopters and rapid inflatable boats are tactically necessary to catch ultra‑fast craft, and specialized units like HITRON historically conducted helicopter interdictions for the Coast Guard [6] [2]. Reuters and CNN reporting describe a U.S. maritime buildup, including carrier presence paired with strike aircraft, reflecting a multi‑domain effort [8] [9].
6. Legal and ethical controversy: second strikes and survivor targeting
Multiple outlets report controversy over repeated strikes and alleged follow‑up attacks on survivors; the White House defended the admiral’s decision to authorize multiple strikes while critics pressed legal and ethical objections [8] [7]. Congressional calls for investigation and opinion pieces urging scrutiny underscore that legality and proportionality are central points of dispute [4] [10].
7. Operational limits and alternative tactics
Journalistic reporting notes limits to both approaches: interdiction struggles with speed and capacity constraints, while standoff strikes create diplomatic fallout and intelligence cooperation breakdowns [6] [5]. Experts cited in coverage recommend pairing helicopters and RIBs for successful interdictions and emphasize multinational cooperation — an area strained by the U.S.’s unilateral strike campaign [6] [5].
8. Competing narratives and agendas
The U.S. frames operations as drug‑control necessity; critics and affected governments allege political motives, including pressure on Maduro and regime‑change aims [1] [5]. Colombia’s withdrawal of intelligence cooperation and Venezuela’s condemnation reflect how tactical choices feed geopolitical narratives that in turn shape operational feasibility [2] [3].
Limitations: available sources summarize reporting through late 2025 and present conflicting claims; they document tactics (strikes, helicopters, carrier deployments) and political reactions but do not supply exhaustive operational after‑action details or forensic evidence for individual engagements [1] [8].