By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In his book, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth describes instructing troops to ignore legal advice regarding the rules of engagement in Iraq, emphasizing a need to destroy threats without restrictions. He also criticized constraints placed on soldiers and expressed admiration for commanders who encouraged aggressive actions. This stance, along with his role in pardoning or supporting soldiers accused of war crimes, has drawn scrutiny, particularly in light of an incident where he allegedly ordered the killing of all survivors in a Caribbean drug boat incident. Experts like David Crane have criticized Hegseth’s views, emphasizing the importance of following the rules of engagement and the negative impact of such actions on military professionalism.
Read the original article here
Pete Hegseth told US soldiers in Iraq to ignore legal advice on rules of engagement. That’s the core of it, and it’s a serious charge with far-reaching implications. It suggests a deliberate disregard for the laws of war, potentially putting soldiers at risk of committing war crimes and undermining the very principles of ethical conduct that the military is supposed to uphold. The very act of instructing soldiers to disregard legal counsel is inherently suspect, as it implies a desire to operate outside the boundaries of established law. This raises fundamental questions about accountability and the potential for abuses of power.
If the orders were legal, why the need to explicitly tell soldiers to ignore legal guidance? It doesn’t make sense. It’s an indicator that something questionable was afoot. Saying something about ignoring legal guidance only serves to signal that something is wrong. This creates a deeply concerning situation, suggesting that the integrity of the military’s legal framework may have been compromised. This raises the question of whether this information was ever raised during the confirmation process.
The timing of this revelation is particularly significant. The anecdote is contained in a book Hegseth himself wrote. This alone should be concerning. He’s literally lying about what lawyers actually say to make himself look tough. This paints a disturbing picture of an individual who is seemingly more interested in cultivating a certain image. This seems like it should have been more heavily scrutinized during his confirmation hearing.
The ramifications of ignoring legal counsel are far-reaching. The rules of engagement are in place to protect both soldiers and civilians. When these rules are ignored, it can lead to tragic consequences, including the unnecessary loss of life and a loss of public trust. This not only puts soldiers at risk of facing serious legal repercussions but also erodes the moral foundation of the military. It can create an atmosphere of impunity, where soldiers feel emboldened to act without regard for the law.
The fact that this alleged incident occurred in the context of the Iraq War adds another layer of complexity. The Iraq War was a conflict that was marred by controversy and allegations of war crimes, which means that any instance of disregarding the rules of engagement should be taken extremely seriously. It’s a sad situation and very concerning. The implications extend far beyond the immediate context of the conflict, potentially impacting the military’s reputation and its relationship with the international community.
The potential consequences for Hegseth are severe, and rightly so. He needs to be held accountable. These actions could also signal a willingness to prioritize political objectives over the rule of law. If those in power are willing to disregard legal advice to achieve their goals, it can create a chilling effect and undermine the very foundation of democracy.