“We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, the military will “kill people and break things for a living.”

-Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense*

In a world where the nature of warfare is increasingly complex, the words of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth provoke both concern and reflection. His declaration that the military will “unleash overwhelming and punishing violence” and “kill people and break things for a living” signals a stark departure from established norms governing warfare, particularly those enshrined in the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC). As tempting as it may be to simplify combat to brute force, doing so undermines not only the moral fabric of our military strategy, but also the very principles that protect our servicemen and women, as well as innocent civilians caught in harm’s way.

With these words the Secretary of Defense sent a dangerous signal to senior commanders that they aren’t bound by the rules of war. It must be noted that the Secretary of Defense is part of the National Command Authority and is liable for any and all violations of the LOAC committed by US Armed Forces as well as by President Trump as Commander in Chief.  Individual criminal responsibility attaches to the chain of command of units who violate international law to include the President and his Secretary of Defense.

Ignoring the LOAC can have dire consequences, not just for global stability but also for the individuals who serve in our armed forces. One of the most immediate dangers is that such an approach opens the door to allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The principles of the LOAC—military necessity, unnecessary suffering, discrimination, and proportionality—exist to protect not only the rights of affected populations but also the integrity of those who engage in armed conflict. When these principles are cast aside, the implications for US Armed Forces are profound.

Service members who engage in actions that violate the LOAC can find themselves criminally liable for war crimes. Legal frameworks such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) can lead to prosecution not only on domestic soil but also possibly in international courts. Ignoring the LOAC can lead to charges based on the 1949 Geneva Conventions or the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The consequences of such charges could be serious.

Moreover, when the US military adopts an approach that disregards the LOAC, it sets a precedent for other nations. Our adversaries may also choose to operate outside the bounds of international law, escalating military engagement toward a more chaotic and unpredictable landscape.

Disregarding the laws governing armed conflict can also significantly affect troop morale. Service members train under the ethos of honor, integrity, and professionalism. When they witness or are ordered to engage in unlawful acts that violate these principles, it can lead to psychological distress, decreased morale, and even widespread disillusionment with military service. Many of our soldiers join the armed forces to defend freedoms and protect the innocent; acting outside the framework of international law can create a chasm of disillusionment. Under the Department of Defense Law of War Program, soldiers of all ranks are told not to follow unlawful orders and to question those orders. If that norm is removed it is a terrible and slippery slope into a new dark age for conflict.

On a broader scale, dismissing LOAC principles could lead to severe diplomatic repercussions. Allies may recoil from collaborating with a force that lacks commitment to the shared values of human rights and ethics. Should any actions taken by US forces be deemed excessive or unlawful, it risks alienating international partnerships that are crucial for operational success. The prospect of legal consequences for potential war crimes looms large and puts our diplomatic relations at risk. The Russian Federation, China, and North Korea, as well as Iran, do not follow the LOAC and they suffer diplomatic consequences, scrutiny, and embarrassment.

Finally, the absence of lawful constraints in warfare threatens strategic objectives over the long term. The resulting devastation can foster hatred and extremism, breeding future generations who may turn against the very entities they once viewed as allies. The cycle of violence becomes self-perpetuating, leading not to lasting peace, but to an environment where conflict becomes the new normal.

In times of conflict, the challenge is to balance the imperative to protect national interests with adherence to the principles that define the character of our nation. If we choose to eschew the guidance of these laws, culminating in claiming short-term tactical victories, we risk long-term strategic failure. The historical lessons are clear; history remembers not only the winners of wars but also how they waged them.

As we move forward (or backward), we must come together to reaffirm our commitment to the Laws of Armed Conflict, ensuring that our military actions reflect not just our might but also our principles as a nation. The LOAC are not obstacles, but rather guiding principles that shine a light in the darkest corridors of war. They remind us that even amid the unfathomable chaos of battle, we must strive to maintain our humanity and uphold the standards that protect not only those we fight against but also those who fight for us. Neglecting these laws is an invitation to chaos, brutality, and ultimately, our own moral undoing.

*Editor’s Note: Throughout this commentary, the author refers to “Secretary of Defense” rather than “Secretary of War.” As the author notes, under the National Security Act, only Congress has the legal authority to change the official title of this cabinet position. The “Secretary of War” designation represents an administrative adjustment by the Trump administration and does not constitute a legally binding change to the position’s official title established by statute.