The recent decision by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to dismiss the Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) of the Army, Navy, and Air Force marks a troubling departure from the decades-long commitment of the US military to uphold the laws of armed conflict. This decision raises urgent concerns about the future of military engagement, the preservation of ethical standards, and the protection of vulnerable populations embroiled in conflict. By prioritizing an aggressive military posture over adherence to established legal norms, the Secretary sends a perilous signal not only to US service members but also to militaries around the world, suggesting that the foundational principles governing warfare—principles designed to mitigate suffering and protect human dignity—are becoming optional rather than essential. It places the lives of our service men and women at risk.
This move by the Defense Secretary weakens the US Department of Defense Law of War Program that was put into place after the horror of the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. US forces moved into the village of My Lai in 1968 and murdered innocent civilians, mostly women and children in a frenzy of undisciplined hate that discredited the professionalism of the US Army. US Armed Forces have since that terrible day have strived to prevent another recurrence of that massacre and ensure that the rule of law would be followed by our armed forces on the battlefield.
The Principles of the Laws of Armed Conflict
The laws of armed conflict, encapsulated in international humanitarian law, are intended to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons. They protect those who do not participate in hostilities and restrict the means and methods of warfare. The primary principles include military necessity, proportionality, and discrimination. Each principle serves as a safeguard against the escalation of violence and the arbitrary use of force.
- Military Necessity
This principle permits the use of force only to achieve a legitimate military objective. Actions taken by combatants must be necessary to secure a military advantage. By dismissing high-ranking legal officers responsible for interpreting and enforcing these principles, the Secretary may signal a readiness to disregard military necessity, potentially justifying indiscriminate violence. Such a shift endangers the foundational ethos of the military, which has historically sought to pursue effective operations in ways that honor ethical conduct. It raises the risk of deploying strategies that prioritize aggression over prudence, which could lead to significant and unnecessary escalation in conflicts.
Implications:
– Operational Integrity: Military leaders may feel pressured to pursue aggressive tactics that blur the lines of legal and ethical conduct, putting military missions at risk by neglecting serious legal ramifications.
– International Standards: US credibility in international coalitions could be undermined. Allies might be less willing to cooperate, fearing complicity in unlawful actions.
- Proportionality
Proportionality demands that the anticipated military advantage gained from an attack must not be outweighed by potential harm to civilians or civilian property. A reckless approach to military engagement risks eroding this standard, leading to heightened civilian casualties. The implications are particularly dire in an era of advanced media scrutiny and rapid dissemination of information, where public opinion profoundly influences political and military outcomes.
Implications:
– Global Consequences: Increased civilian casualties can lead to international condemnation and strengthen anti-American sentiments, potentially fueling extremist narratives and hindering diplomatic efforts.
– Operational Review: Countries may reassess their support for US-led initiatives if they believe that military objectives supersede civilian safety.
- Discrimination
The principle of discrimination requires combatants to distinguish between legitimate military targets and non-combatants. The laws of armed conflict serve to protect civilians and those who are hors de combat—the wounded and the sick. Hegseth’s actions could undermine this critical distinction, potentially leading to a logic where the “collateral” damage of civilian lives is deemed acceptable, thereby eroding trust in military operations.
Implications:
– Humanitarian Crisis: An increase in civilian casualties often leads to humanitarian crises, stretching the capabilities of NGOs and the international community. This could exacerbate regional instability, resulting in long-term consequences for US foreign policy.
– Recruitment and Retaliation: Civilian casualties can serve to fuel resistance movements, resulting in an ongoing cycle of conflict that proves counterproductive to US interests.
The Geneva Conventions: A Shield for Humanity in War
The Geneva Conventions are instrumental in protecting those found on the battlefield: the wounded and sick, prisoners of war, and civilians. They represent a commitment to infuse humanity into the horrors of war, preserving the dignity and rights of individuals irrespective of the circumstances surrounding conflict. By diminishing the role of legal oversight within military operations, the Secretary of Defense appears to advocate for a paradigm wherein such protections are viewed as constraints rather than obligations. This is not just a dangerous oversight; it is a fundamental misalignment with the core values that the US military has long championed.
The historical context of the Geneva Conventions stems from lessons learned—the acknowledgment that warfare entails suffering that can and must be mitigated through legal frameworks. By sending a message that these longstanding principles can be disregarded, Hegseth risks emboldening military forces globally to operate without regard for the established rules that have provided a semblance of order amid chaos. Again US forces lives are at risk.
Broader Political and Diplomatic Considerations
The decision to diminish the role of JAGs and potentially step away from the laws of armed conflict may have far-reaching implications that extend beyond the battlefield. Politically, it could lead to a weakening of legal frameworks established under international law, prompting other nations to similarly disregard these laws, thereby facilitating a more chaotic and less regulated environment for military engagement worldwide.
- Political and Legal Ramifications
– Domestic Legislative Challenges: A shift away from established legal norms could provoke heated debates in Congress regarding military strategy and oversight. Questions may arise about the legal justification for military actions and the consequences of unregulated warfare. Turning our warriors into war criminals has huge political ramifications.
- Diplomatic Relations
– Damaged Alliances: Long-standing allies that prioritize adherence to international humanitarian law may view the US approach as reckless, thereby straining diplomatic relations and creating rifts in established partnerships and coalitions.
– Global Norm Setting: US behavior could influence global norms, potentially leading other nations to adopt less scrupulous approaches to warfare.
Practical Considerations for US Armed Forces
The implications of stepping away from the laws of armed conflict are not limited to ethics and diplomacy. Practically, the US military could face operational challenges that arise from a lack of clear legal guidelines:
– Training and Discipline: Military training that emphasizes adherence to the laws of armed conflict may suffer as the legal framework becomes less emphasized. This impacts soldiers, diminishing their ability to operate ethically and effectively in complex combat scenarios. Military operations would violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the customs and courtesies of all the military services.
– Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Ignoring the principles of humanitarian law can complicate post-conflict reconstruction efforts. Divisions within affected regions can deepen when local populations perceive the US military as an indiscriminate aggressor rather than a liberator.
The move to sideline the JAGs and diminish adherence to the law of armed conflict signals a concerning trend that has implications for US military effectiveness, international relations, and global stability. While aggressive military tactics may promise immediate advantages, they fundamentally risk undermining the ethical standards, legal principles, and humanitarian objectives that have guided US military actions for decades. Upholding the laws of armed conflict is not just a legal obligation; it is a moral and strategic imperative essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of US military operations on the global stage. The challenge moving forward will be to ensure that the hard-fought principles of human rights and dignity in warfare remain fundamental to military engagement, securing both national interests and human dignity in the process.
Ignoring the laws of the battlefield is not merely an administrative shift; it represents a substantive rethinking of how military forces engage with the world. As we stand on this dark and slippery slope, it is imperative to reinforce the notion that the rule of law must prevail, not only for the sake of ethical military conduct but for the broader protection of human rights and dignity in the face of conflict. The guardians of the laws of armed conflict must remain an integral part of military operations, ensuring that even amidst the horrors of war, we maintain a commitment to humanity and justice.
The Waffen SS fighting for Nazi Germany in World War II approached conflict aggressively ignoring the current laws of armed conflict. The results were devastating resulting in a diminished Germany and follow on war crimes trials. Justice Robert H. Jackson warned us at the Nuremberg Trials:
The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated.
David M. Crane served as the Founding Chief Prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone and is the Founder of the Global Accountability Network, an organization dedicated to promoting international justice and human rights.
