Pete Hegseth, president-elect Donald Trump’s choice for defense secretary, gained notoriety in part because of his scathing critique of the regulations guiding American forces in combat on Fox News. He claimed that stringent restrictions hindered American soldiers fighting barbaric Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan while serving with the Army National Guard.
According to Hegseth’s book The War on Warriors, published last year, “In certain instances, our units were so constrained by rules and regulations and political correctness, we even second-guess ourselves.” That must stop. I’m not interested in quarterbacking on Monday mornings. The American warfighter has my full support.
Hegseth will probably be questioned about claims of sexual assault, excessive drinking, and poor management in his prior positions during his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday.
However, some active and retired military officials claim that Hegseth’s strong opinions about the prosecution of American soldiers for war crimes and his support for service members convicted by their comrades run the risk of eroding fundamental values that have influenced the American military for many years.
According to an active U.S. military commander who wished to remain anonymous, Hegseth’s position “should be disqualifying.” Additionally, Hegseth’s prior backing of military personnel who were charged with or found guilty of crimes on the battlefield may have repercussions across the military, according to former Army major general Paul Eaton.
In reference to Hegseth’s prior involvement in cases as a Fox News commentator, Eaton stated that he approved of murder and execution. That will present a formidable challenge for all senior noncommissioned officers, from squad leaders to all other leaders.
Trump’s pick has expressed his opinions about too restricted rules of engagement for U.S. forces using colorful language, but his detractors have misunderstood him, according to Hegseth’s attorney, Tim Parlatore.
According to Parlatore, he is not in any way urging people to disregard the Law of Armed Conflict. He claims that the interpretation that has been applied locally is unduly restrictive.
from the beginning of their training and at each career advancement. Training and instruction on proper behavior in combat are provided to U.S. personnel. For both ethical and pragmatic grounds, commanders view the training as essential to the military.
According to current and past military officials, following the code guarantees that soldiers maintain discipline and concentrate on military goals rather than criminal activity. Any troops who are later captured by the enemy may likewise be put in danger if war crimes and atrocities are committed.
Gary Solis, a Vietnam-serving Marine veteran and former instructor at the USMA at West Point, stated that there must be restrictions on the behavior of combatants. In every other case, it turns into murder.
Trying to reassure lawmakers
Hegseth has been attempting to make his position clear to parliamentarians, notwithstanding his public doubts about the Geneva Conventions’ applicability to contemporary fighting against noncompliant fanatics.
According to a Republican congressional staffer and a source close to Hegseth, Hegseth has informed lawmakers in recent talks with Republican senators that he has no plans to do away with the Geneva Conventions or the U.S. military legal code. Hegseth has expressed his belief that military personnel ought to adhere to them going forward.
According to Parlatore, Hegseth believes that the Geneva Conventions were primarily influenced by the Second World War and do not account for the kind of enemies the United States has recently seen, like the terrorist organization Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.
According to Parlatore, Hegseth thinks the Geneva Conventions should be updated to reflect the new realities on the battlefield, since these militants don’t wear uniforms, don’t represent any internationally recognized governments, don’t distinguish between civilians and combatants, and don’t follow any rules pertaining to prisoners of war.
According to Parlatore, Hegseth’s critiques center on how military attorneys interpret international agreements and the U.S. military code and how the rules of engagement for troops in conflict have been excessively rigid and unworkable.
However, Hegseth seems to disregard the Geneva Conventions, which underwent significant revision during World War II, in The War on Warriors. In what appears to be a reference to the Geneva Conventions, he says that American soldiers should not fight according to regulations drafted by respectable men in mahogany rooms eighty years ago.
In addition, Hegseth criticizes international law and the U.S. military’s rules of engagement, which he claims were overly cautious during his field trips.
Hegseth remarked, “I could write five thousand more words on the ins and outs of the philosophy of warfare, the crazy maze of rules of engagement, and the foolishness of international law.” However, we must liberate our boys to win if we are going to send them to fight, and it should be boys. They require the most brutal of them. The most unyielding. the most deadly because of their potential.
According to Yale Law School military justice professor Eugene Fidell, the military’s rigorous training on the Geneva Conventions and the US military’s code of conduct is intended to help them deal with the mayhem that breaks out on the battlefield.
“It is very easy for people to lose sight of their legal constraints in the haze of war and in times of chaos, so it must be hammered in that this is important and you cannot set it aside,” Fidell said. There’s a reason these rules of engagement exist. You follow the law and do it because it is right.
Lobbying for pardons
When Hegseth supported three service members who were found guilty or charged with war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq during Trump’s first term, the president took notice. Hegseth urged Trump to get in on their behalf during interviews on Fox News.
In one instance, Trump granted a complete pardon to Clint Lorance, a former Army lieutenant who had been found guilty by a jury of fellow military personnel and was serving out a 19-year term for the killing of two civilians in Afghanistan. The two individuals did not represent a threat, according to testimony from Lorance’s squad.
Additionally, Trump pardoned Army special forces officer Maj. Matthew Golsteyn, who was accused of murder after he killed an unarmed Afghan he thought was a Taliban bomb builder. Additionally, Trump, supported by Hegseth and other right pundits, overturned the demotion of Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, who was found guilty of posing in a picture with a captured dead insurgent but cleared of murder charges.
Hegseth contended that the circumstances of each case have to be considered and that suspected or convicted service members were handled unfairly in all three.
Hegseth does not support war crimes, according to Parlatore, but he did not agree with the way the cases were handled in court. Additionally, Hegseth did not oppose to a case in which his regiment members were convicted of killing three unarmed Iraqi men.
Both then-defense secretary Mark Esper and later Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy objected to Trump’s interventions. According to both top defense officials, Trump’s move would undermine the military’s legal system and give troops the incorrect impression.
Hegseth commended Trump’s actions in The War on Warriors and proposed that radicals who refuse to follow international war crimes laws should not be subject to them.
If your adversary disregards the Geneva Conventions, what should you do? Hegseth wrote. We frequently asked, particularly if we wanted to win. Furthermore, it was never made apparent in any of the lectures, PowerPoint presentation decks, or briefings.
Hegseth’s assertions and statements, according to current and former officers and military justice experts, raise severe concerns about whether he would adhere to the military’s fundamental values of behavior on the battlefield or even try to sabotage legal procedures.
They point out that Congress, not the Biden administration, passed the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the legal code for the U.S. military, 75 years ago. It encompasses the principles of the international law of armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of fighters who have been caught, the distinction between military and civilian objectives, proportional responses, and the avoidance of needless suffering.
According to Jason Dempsey, a 22-year veteran of the Army who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans fight the way we do because we do think we’re on the side of good. It would be worrisome to allies and advantageous to our adversaries to blatantly give up that high ground from the beginning.
Some American soldiers have broken the laws of war, according to Dempsey, who is currently an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security think tank. The U.S. military, like all militaries, has grappled with these issues, he acknowledged. The fact that all Americans behave honorably in combat is well known. However, troops are accustomed to these rules.
Hegseth’s words, according to military veterans and legal experts, may give service members conflicting information about what regulations they should follow and if they should report those who disobey the military’s code of conduct.
For combat efficiency and the sake of the cause’s righteousness, you must take a firm stance against such behavior, Dempsey stated.
Hegseth’s words may make service members wonder if their superiors would follow the military code, according to Solis, a former military judge advocate and Marine veteran.
According to Solis, regulations must be followed, or at the very least, established, in order to penalize those who break them. We become what we fight if we disregard the laws of armed combat. What we are fighting for becomes ourselves. We are reduced to the level of our adversaries.