The Trump administration has argued that the US is at war with drug traffickers and that such strikes are legal under the rules of war, but most legal experts reject that rationale.
I would like to shut that shit down. You are not at war.
Have the "drug runners" struck at any US targets (preferably targets of military significance)? If not, then what I see is one party ruthlessly attacking another party repeatedly. If these were individuals that would be called a serial killer. And for serial killers it's never been a good defense to say "no no, this is legal, look how many people I've liked, I'm clearly at war, and this is legal in war". That's idiotic.
Furthermore, WE ARE NOT AT WAR! If you want a war, get Congress to declare war, we have a fucking process for that!
And finally, if this isn't a war, then it should be more of a policing situation. In no scenario should police fire missiles first and ask questions never. An acceptable way to handle this might be to disable the boat with munitions, and then detain all ~~fisherman~~ narcos aboard. Bonus, this would allow you to seize all the ~~fish~~ narcotics in their hold, which would prove you had the moral high ground and aren't just crazy murders. I mean can you imagine that, if you were just murdering people because you could and making sure to send all evidence and survivers to the bottom of the sea... Man, that would be nuts! People would be all like "who put these psychopaths in charge?!"
Hey, I'm sorry to break it to you, but...
collapsed inline media
Irreparable damage will be done and nobody is really going to pay. The most you can expect is a patsy to take the fall, and it will probably be some military officer who wasn't the problem.