Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defense, has urged US troops in Iraq to ignore legal guidance on the rules of engagement, a stance he outlined in his own book, raising new questions about how he approaches the laws of armed conflict as he faces scrutiny over an attack in the Caribbean.
His account details why he dismissed official legal advice early in his deployment to Iraq and how that moment shaped his broader criticism of the U.S. rules of engagement.
Hegseth, the US defense secretary, wrote that he once told soldiers under his command in Iraq to ignore legal advice about when they were allowed to kill enemy combatants under their rules of engagement. The anecdote appears in his book The War on Warriors, where he argues that “American warriors” are too restricted by the laws of war and the Geneva conventions.
His approach is now under renewed scrutiny following an attack on a ship in the Caribbean, where survivors of the first attack were allegedly killed in a second attack following a verbal order from Hegseth to “kill everyone.”
Hegseth has denied giving that order and continues to have the support of Donald Trump, who said Hegseth told him “he didn’t say that, and I believe him, 100%.” However, some US senators have raised the possibility that the secretary of war may have committed a war crime.
In the book, Hegseth describes receiving a legal briefing “upon arriving in Iraq,” during which a JAG lawyer explained the rules of engagement. He wrote that infantrymen generally distrust military lawyers and refer to JAG officers as “jagoffs.” He stated that many “spend more time prosecuting our troops than locking up bad guys.”
Hegseth relates that the JAG officer used the example of an enemy holding a rocket-propelled grenade and asked, “Are you shooting at him?”
Hegseth said he and his men were “stunned” and then told them to ignore the instructions. “I will not allow such nonsense to seep into your brains,” he wrote, instructing his platoon to “engage and destroy the threat” if they believed an enemy posed a danger.
Professor David M Crane, former chief prosecutor of the UN special court for Sierra Leone and an army veteran who served as a JAG lawyer, said following the rules of engagement is essential and violations must be sanctioned.
He cited past U.S. efforts to prevent incidents like My Lai and pointed to war crimes prosecutions in places like Fallujah.
Crane noted that liability for illegal orders can extend up the chain of command “all the way to the president of the United States.” He said that if an illegal order is carried out, “everyone has committed a war crime.”
In his book, Hegseth questions the foundations of international humanitarian law and argues that US forces should not sacrifice lives to make “international tribunals feel better about themselves.” During Trump’s first term, Hegseth advocated for clemency for service members accused or convicted of war crimes.
Crane rejected Hegseth’s description of JAG officers as adversaries of soldiers, insisting that they are “soldiers who are lawyers” and respected in the field. He added that he served alongside combat units, completing every task they performed.
Hegseth praises his former brigade commander, Col. Michael Steele, calling him “a certified badass.” Steele was reprimanded after soldiers under his command killed unarmed Iraqis in 2006. Media reports at the time indicated that Steele promoted body counts as a performance measure.
Crane said commanders like Steele are often removed from service or reprimanded because those mindsets are “outside the bounds” of acceptable military conduct. He argued that Hegseth’s admiration for such approaches reflected a worrying mindset.
Throughout the book, Hegseth continues to criticize legal and regulatory limits on American troops, arguing that they create doubt on the battlefield. He writes that American soldiers should be “the most ruthless” and given wide room for maneuver, including the “overwhelming benefit of the doubt” when mistakes are made.
Crane said such pardons and attitudes “cheap the profession” and undermine the military’s commitment to lawful conduct. He added that the military is “now irritated and embarrassed” because it sees itself as serving the nation, not the preferences of any president.
(The UK Guardian)
READ ALSO TOP STORIES OF Newslodge