Pentagon Shake-Up: Sudden Command Change Amid Growing Latin America Crisis

Paul Riverbank, 12/13/2025An abrupt command change at U.S. Southern Command comes amid mounting scrutiny of deadly new anti-drug tactics in Latin America, raising urgent questions about military strategy, leadership stability, and the broader U.S. approach to the region.

Holsey, in his departing words, didn’t dwell on reasons for leaving—nor did he reference the controversial U.S. military actions that have recently turned global attention toward Southern Command. Instead, he called for credibility and engagement, neatly sidestepping the mounting questions. “To be a trusted partner, we must be credible, present and engaged,” he said, framing the moment less as an ending and more a call to steady leadership.

The event was short on the usual speeches and long on subtext. In the audience, seasoned staffers shifted quietly, and a few exchanged looks as Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, praised Holsey’s understated style. “It’s never been about you, it’s been about people, it’s been about others,” Caine reflected, hinting at the admiral’s humility—something the military institution often lauds but rarely sees as reason for abrupt departures.

Yet Holsey’s early exit comes at a contentious time. For months, headlines and confidential briefings alike have focused on a new wave of U.S. strikes—deadly attacks on boats suspected of trafficking drugs in both the Caribbean and the Pacific. Since the campaign began during the Trump administration, at least 87 deaths have been logged, a sharp departure from years past. Previously, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted these vessels, detaining crews for trial in American courts. That model is gone, replaced by direct military intervention—warships, helicopters, and boots on deck, with the rules rewritten in the wake of September 11.

The Pentagon had announced Holsey’s retirement in October, quietly, and after the strikes had already begun to draw attention. Legal scholars, human rights advocates, and members of Congress all started asking sharper questions: Has the U.S. gone too far? Why abandon established practices? And critically, who had signed off on the operational shift?

The administration has doubled down, citing anti-terror laws and designating several Latin American drug cartels as foreign terrorist outfits. The messaging, public and private, is consistent—these operations are justified by an ongoing armed conflict, both on legal and moral grounds. There’s also the ever-present cloud over the administration’s policy toward Venezuela. President Nicolás Maduro, whose grip on power leans heavily on oil sales now targeted by U.S. interdictions, insists Washington’s endgame is regime change, not counternarcotics.

Incidents continue to pile up. Just before Holsey’s change in command, U.S. forces took hold of a tanker they say was smuggling Venezuelan oil—a move that only sharpened political tensions. In the water, tragedies underline the cost: the most widely reported being an attack that left two survivors clinging to splintered wreckage, later confirmed dead. Reports like these have prompted congressional hearings. Last week, Pentagon officials—including both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary Hegseth—met behind closed doors on Capitol Hill. Holsey himself joined lawmakers for classified conversations, and sources indicate he answered with candor but left some issues unresolved. According to Senator Jack Reed, “there are still many questions to be answered.” Holsey, for his part, described the move as a personal choice but gave no details.

With no permanent chief named, Lt. Gen. Pettus inherits a command in limbo. His background—combat tours over Afghanistan and Iraq, leadership under pressure—sets a certain tone, but for how long? The White House is quiet on a timeline.

Holsey’s farewell is not an isolated event. Recently, the Pentagon has seen several sudden exits among its top brass since Hegseth assumed leadership. Military personnel in the region, as well as observers in Washington, are left to parse what’s next—for command, for ongoing drug war policy, and for U.S. positioning in Latin America. For now, as SouthCom’s mission continues, uncertainty seems its most stable feature.

The Friday afternoon sun bore down quietly on U.S. Southern Command headquarters near Miami—no fanfare, just the usual buzz of security and staff. One might have expected some stir, but the gathering was small, almost private. Navy Admiral Alvin Holsey was stepping away from command, cutting short a post that normally runs several years. What struck observers was not just who had arrived, but who hadn’t: no sign of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth or any high-profile envoys from Washington. Even Holsey’s permanent successor hadn’t been announced—just a handoff to his deputy, Air Force Lt. Gen. Evan Pettus, in a handover more functional than ceremonious.Holsey, in his departing words, didn’t dwell on reasons for leaving—nor did he reference the controversial U.S. military actions that have recently turned global attention toward Southern Command. Instead, he called for credibility and engagement, neatly sidestepping the mounting questions. “To be a trusted partner, we must be credible, present and engaged,” he said, framing the moment less as an ending and more a call to steady leadership.The event was short on the usual speeches and long on subtext. In the audience, seasoned staffers shifted quietly, and a few exchanged looks as Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, praised Holsey’s understated style. “It’s never been about you, it’s been about people, it’s been about others,” Caine reflected, hinting at the admiral’s humility—something the military institution often lauds but rarely sees as reason for abrupt departures.Yet Holsey’s early exit comes at a contentious time. For months, headlines and confidential briefings alike have focused on a new wave of U.S. strikes—deadly attacks on boats suspected of trafficking drugs in both the Caribbean and the Pacific. Since the campaign began during the Trump administration, at least 87 deaths have been logged, a sharp departure from years past. Previously, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted these vessels, detaining crews for trial in American courts. That model is gone, replaced by direct military intervention—warships, helicopters, and boots on deck, with the rules rewritten in the wake of September 11.The Pentagon had announced Holsey’s retirement in October, quietly, and after the strikes had already begun to draw attention. Legal scholars, human rights advocates, and members of Congress all started asking sharper questions: Has the U.S. gone too far? Why abandon established practices? And critically, who had signed off on the operational shift?The administration has doubled down, citing anti-terror laws and designating several Latin American drug cartels as foreign terrorist outfits. The messaging, public and private, is consistent—these operations are justified by an ongoing armed conflict, both on legal and moral grounds. There’s also the ever-present cloud over the administration’s policy toward Venezuela. President Nicolás Maduro, whose grip on power leans heavily on oil sales now targeted by U.S. interdictions, insists Washington’s endgame is regime change, not counternarcotics.Incidents continue to pile up. Just before Holsey’s change in command, U.S. forces took hold of a tanker they say was smuggling Venezuelan oil—a move that only sharpened political tensions. In the water, tragedies underline the cost: the most widely reported being an attack that left two survivors clinging to splintered wreckage, later confirmed dead. Reports like these have prompted congressional hearings. Last week, Pentagon officials—including both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary Hegseth—met behind closed doors on Capitol Hill. Holsey himself joined lawmakers for classified conversations, and sources indicate he answered with candor but left some issues unresolved. According to Senator Jack Reed, “there are still many questions to be answered.” Holsey, for his part, described the move as a personal choice but gave no details.With no permanent chief named, Lt. Gen. Pettus inherits a command in limbo. His background—combat tours over Afghanistan and Iraq, leadership under pressure—sets a certain tone, but for how long? The White House is quiet on a timeline.Holsey’s farewell is not an isolated event. Recently, the Pentagon has seen several sudden exits among its top brass since Hegseth assumed leadership. Military personnel in the region, as well as observers in Washington, are left to parse what’s next—for command, for ongoing drug war policy, and for U.S. positioning in Latin America. For now, as SouthCom’s mission continues, uncertainty seems its most stable feature.