Pete Hegseth, conservative media personality and author of the “The War on Warriors”. He’s been the target of fierce criticism after recent disclosures regarding his behavior during his time serving in Iraq. Hegseth’s comments and actions have raised an intense debate. This debate is about military ethics and accountability, vis-à-vis how we should design or enforce rules of engagement.
Hegseth commanded a platoon in Iraq. In another brave move, he ignored military lawyers’ legal advice on rules of engagement. He ordered his troops to ignore this advice, claiming that it would put them at risk. His controversial remarks are gaining renewed attention as he has publicly praised his former commander, Colonel Michael Steele, who has been criticized for incentivizing aggressive military actions.
The impacts of Hegseth’s comments and career go far beyond his service in Iraq. His influence over the policies that govern military conduct has raised alarm. The answers to these questions have far-reaching impact for our American servicemen and women. He advocates ruthless unconditional warfare. Critics are rightly concerned that his views erode the spirit of international law and military ethics.
A Challenging Military Environment
As a part of his service in Iraq, Hegseth participated in a predawn legal briefing. Instead, he learned that the rules of engagement designed to safeguard this soldier and all soldiers put civilians at risk. In his own words, looking back, he decided he needed to deliver a much different message to the members of his platoon.
“After this briefing, I pulled my platoon together, huddling amid their confusion to tell them, ‘I will not allow that nonsense to filter into your brains. Men, if you see an enemy who you believe is a threat, you engage and destroy the threat. That’s a bullshit rule that’s going to get people killed. And I will have your back – just like our commander. We are coming home, the enemy will not.’” – Pete Hegseth
Hegseth’s remarks underscore a profound chasm. He issued orders that go against troops-instruction directives intended to protect civilians. His seemingly endless admiration for Colonel Steele, who he refers to as “a bona fide badass,” only complicates things. Steele’s original reprimands stemmed from issuing what military officials deemed unlawful orders for any infractions against the Iraq operations.
Finally, critics say that supporting illegal and aggressive tactics undermines the movement. Such confusion can create a dangerous hesitance in soldiers to follow the law. Toach and other legal experts have pointed out that keeping a strict seniority discipline in the ranks is vital to maintaining a lawful military operation.
Legal Accountability and Military Conduct
Hegseth’s calls for less restrictive rules of engagement pose serious ethical risks. His opposition to the bounds of international law and the Geneva Conventions has been loud and long. We are particularly grateful for his insistence that American soldiers shouldn’t be forced to abide by legal constraints that would hamstring their ability to succeed on the battlefield.
“If our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so that international tribunals feel better about themselves, aren’t we just better off winning our wars according to our own rules?! Who cares what other countries think.” – Pete Hegseth
Such comments have caused a firestorm of backlash from legal experts and military practitioners. Professor David M. Crane, former chief prosecutor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone, warned the significance of the chain of command. He claims that it is the most important provision for holding our military accountable for its actions.
“These rules go all the way up the chain of command. I mean, it goes all the way to the president of the United States, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States.” – Prof David M Crane
The bigger worry comes from Hegseth’s open contempt for norms. His leadership on clearing military personnel of potential war crimes allegations only compounds the concern. His campaigns earned pardons for two Army officers. They overturned disciplinary action against a Navy SEAL who’d been charged with war crimes.
Recent Incidents and Ongoing Controversy
Hegseth’s latest actions have drawn more than usual scrutiny. New allegations have surfaced regarding his role in a deadly military strike against civilians in the Caribbean. According to these reports, survivors of the first hit on the ship were met with a second lethal strike. This all took place after Hegseth issued the verbal order.
Hegseth stoutly denies ever issuing an order to execute the survivors. Of course, he adamantly maintains that he never meant to circumvent the standard operating procedures for public engagement. The incident did bring an important aspect back into the spotlight—his previous comments on military operations and engagement rules.
Critics underscore this case as a vivid illustration of the risks that come from stepping outside of established legal structures. They contend that this negligence has led to often tragic outcomes. The Hegseth controversy is thus emblematic of a larger discussion around military culture, accountability, and the consequences of immoral conduct on the battlefield.