The defense secretary’s disdain for rules of engagement and the laws of war is apparent. And it could lead to war crimes — by Americans and against Americans.
The dangerous significance of Pete Hegseth’s ‘no quarter’ Iran war pledge -
The defense secretary’s disdain for rules of engagement and the laws of war is apparent. And it could lead to war crimes — by Americans and against Americans.
www.ms.now/opinion/hegs...
— Susan Cooper aka Buzzedition (@buzzedition.bsky.social) 2026-03-15T03:45:22.636Z
https://www.ms.now/opinion/hegseth-war-crimes-iran-no-quarter
It’s no secret that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth doesn’t care much for the laws of war. In the opening days of the war against Iran, he proudly said the ongoing assault involved
“no stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars.” Standing before the press Friday morning, Hegseth again promised
“no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” .....
As MS NOW’s Julia Jester rightly noted, Friday’s comments from
Hegseth calling for “no quarter” stand out for even more implicitly greenlighting the military to violate the broader laws of war as well as the military’s own longstanding rules of engagement:
Orders or threats of “no quarter” — a term used for killing enemies who surrender or are rendered unable to fight — have been considered violations of international law since the Hague Convention of 1899, with “directions to give no quarter” listed as a war crime following World War II. […]
And it’s not just global rules that are being flouted. Not only does the term no quarter violate the Geneva Convention, it defies the U.S. Marine Corps’ own rules of engagement: “Do not engage anyone who has surrendered or is out of battle due to sickness or wounds.”
.....
That seems unlikely given a new effort from Hegseth to undertake a “ruthless overhaul” of the military’s judge advocate general corps and their fellow civilian lawyers at the Pentagon. As The Atlantic reported, the concern with this review is that it provides cover for an attempt to
“reduce the ranks of lawyers, purge internal dissent, and eliminate guardrails designed to restrict the military from carrying out legally dubious orders.” And while operations like the sinking of an Iranian warship returning from a multinational training exercise are technically allowed under the laws of war, it’s hard to say they were fully legal under American law, given the administration’s lack of a clear legal rationale for the war effort.
Despite what Hegseth may think,
words matter in times of war. Beyond conveying the message of what is gained through fighting, it is only through clear communication that the orders from the top can be carried out by the servicemembers who’ve sworn an oath to obey them.
His refusal to acknowledge that there are times where things other than body count should factor into combat decisions threatens the cohesion and professionalism of the military.
Likewise, it’s the global commitment to the established laws of war that keeps American civilians safe and untargeted. In rejecting them with his statements,
he is incentivizing those who serve under his command to not only discard their humanity but destroy a shield protecting their fellow Americans from having the same standard of “maximum lethality” carried out against them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
