Pete Hegseth is once again the center of controversy due to his take on the rules of engagement. A section from his recent book, The War on Warriors, has resurfaced as investigators look into a deadly strike on September 2 in the Caribbean. That attack reportedly resulted in the deaths of survivors from an initial hit during a second strike. Multiple accounts say that Hegseth gave the verbal order for this follow-up: “kill everybody.”
This controversy has led to renewed questions about Hegseth’s views on the laws of war. Some wonder if he sees legal limits as an obstacle rather than an obligation. A newly emphasized story from his time in Iraq is quite revealing. It shows a young Hegseth, by his own admission, directing his soldiers to ignore the rules of engagement established by a military lawyer meant to keep U.S. forces within international law.
In the book, Hegseth writes about arriving “in theater” and getting a standard legal briefing on when troops can fire on enemy combatants, per The Guardian. He does not hide his dislike for this process. “Needless to say, no infantrymen like army lawyers,” he states, adding that JAG officers are often called “jagoffs.” He goes on to accuse military lawyers of focusing more on prosecuting American troops than on capturing “bad guys,” claiming that “It’s easier to get promoted that way.”
One moment that still resonates with his critics occurs when the JAG officer presents a hypothetical situation. An enemy has a rocket-propelled grenade. “Do you shoot at him?” the officer asks. Hegseth remembers his soldiers immediately responding, “Hell, yeah, we light him up.” But the legal answer was the opposite. According to Hegseth, the JAG attorney told them: “Wrong answer, men. You are not authorized to fire at that man until that RPG becomes a threat. It must be aimed at you with the intent to fire. That makes it a legal and proper engagement.”
Hegseth describes the room going silent. He makes clear what he thought of the guidance. After the briefing, he says he pulled his platoon aside to correct what they had just learned. “I will not allow that nonsense to filter into your brains,” he told them. “Men, if you see an enemy who you believe is a threat, you engage and destroy the threat. That’s a stupid rule that’s going to get people killed. And I will have your back, just like our commander. We are coming home; the enemy will not.”
This passage might have once been seen as bravado, the kind of confidence that fills many war stories. But the timing of its rediscovery is unfortunate. Hegseth is already facing scrutiny over the Caribbean incident that left several people dead. This has led to accusations of excessive force, poor intelligence, and, most seriously, a disregard for the laws of armed conflict. The Pentagon has announced it is reviewing what happened, and lawmakers are demanding more information about the operation.
Hegseth has not publicly connected the Iraq story to the current investigation. Yet critics argue that the story shows a long-standing disdain for legal constraints meant to protect civilians and U.S. troops. Supporters say he was voicing the frustrations of soldiers in chaotic situations, where inaction can be dangerous.
