Pete Hegseth urged US soldiers in Iraq to disregard legal advice on rules of engagement

Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, reportedly instructed troops under his command in Iraq to disregard legal guidance concerning the timing and conditions under which they could engage enemy combatants, according to his own account in a book published last year. In The War on Warriors, Hegseth repeatedly criticized the limitations imposed on American soldiers by the laws of armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions.

Hegseth is currently under investigation regarding a September 2 strike on a Caribbean vessel allegedly carrying narcotics. Reports claim that survivors from an initial strike were killed in a subsequent attack following Hegseths alleged order to kill everybody. Hegseth has denied issuing this directive and retains the support of former President Donald Trump, who stated that he believes Hegseths denial. Nevertheless, some U.S. senators have suggested the possibility that Hegseths actions could constitute a war crime.

In his book, Hegseth recounts an early briefing in Iraq where he told his platoon to ignore the instructions of a military judge advocate general (JAG) officer regarding rules of engagement. He describes the briefing in which the JAG officer used the scenario of an enemy holding a rocket-propelled grenade to illustrate the legal restrictions on firing. Hegseth writes that when the officer explained that troops could not fire until directly threatened, his platoon was stunned. He then told his men to disregard the legal counsel, emphasizing that they should engage threats immediately and assured them of his support.

Legal experts have strongly criticized this approach. Prof. David M. Crane, a former UN war crimes prosecutor and army veteran, emphasized that adherence to rules of engagement is essential and that violations must be sanctioned. He noted that illegal orders extend up the chain of command, potentially implicating all those who follow them, including the president as commander-in-chief.

Hegseths book challenges the entire framework of international law governing warfare. He questions whether soldiers should follow rules designed to satisfy international tribunals rather than prioritize operational effectiveness. He also praised military figures who encouraged aggressive combat tactics, including retired Colonel Michael Steele, who was reprimanded for allegedly ordering the killing of all military-age males during a 2006 Iraq raid.

Crane criticized Hegseths depiction of JAG lawyers as antagonistic toward soldiers, stating that judge advocates are themselves soldiers and are respected by their units for ensuring compliance with the laws of armed conflict. Crane described Steeles conduct as outside acceptable bounds, noting that his career was curtailed as a result of his actions.

Hegseth also expresses broader grievances about legal and regulatory constraints on troops in combat, arguing that American soldiers should operate without limitations to maximize lethality. He suggests that troops should be given the benefit of the doubt if mistakes occur in the field, a stance consistent with his public support for pardons of military personnel previously convicted or charged with war crimes.

Crane warned that such a philosophy undermines military professionalism and integrity. He stressed that the armed forces pride themselves on following the law, and politicizing legal accountability risks eroding public trust and the militarys own standards of conduct.

Author: Sophia Brooks