Photo by Terrance Barksdale
There are recent reports of the US military’s follow-on military strikes against boats in the Caribbean that are alleged to be involved in narcotics trafficking. These operations have sparked fierce debate. What rules should govern the use of force in any military operations? What are the international laws, rules of engagement (ROE), and military conduct (within or outside of declared war) that should be followed? And do these rules of engagement hinder, or strengthen national security?
Are Military Rules Arbitrary?
Current US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth appears to believe that America’s warriors are being constrained by “arbitrary” rules and international expectations that he argues cost lives and hinder victory. In an excerpt from his book The Laws of War, For Winners (from Chapter 10 entitled “More Lethality, Less Lawyers”) he says:
“If our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so that international tribunals feel better about themselves, aren’t we just better off winning our wars according to our own rules?! Who cares what other countries think. The question we have to ask ourselves is, if we are forced to fight, are we going to fight to win? Or will we fight to make leftists feel good- which means not winning and fighting forever.”
This passage illustrates Hegseth’s apparent sentiments that rules of engagement (ROE), the Geneva Conventions, and other long-held pillars of international humanitarian law are bureaucratic political hinderances- apparently imposed by outsiders that have no real battlefield experiences. But he does not seem to acknowledge that rules of engagement were not arbitrarily dreamed up by ivory tower academics. They were begun with WWII participants from across the world- senior military officers, strategists, and combat-experienced practitioners. They brought their firsthand knowledge in industrial warfare, battlefield medicine, POW handling, civilian protection issues, etc.- gritty empirical battlefield realities of war. Additionally, these contributors to ROE were well-acquainted in the realities of winning wars.
The Framework Behind the Rules
So with this current debate rekindled, it’s worth briefly reviewing what these wartime rules actually are, what they’re intended to do, and why professional international militaries rely on them- not as obstacles, but tools that support lawful, effective, and legitimate operations.
Wartime rules fall under the framework of what is called international humanitarian law (IHL). IHL applies universally to all parties in any armed conflicts, with the GenevaConventions at its core. Since 1949, The Geneva Conventions established the common standards for the protection of civilians, wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and other noncombatants, with additional interpretations and applications added over the years.
The core rules of engagement (ROE) for wartime are based upon three principals: military necessity, military proportionality, and the distinction between combatants and civilians.
Military necessity: The use of force should only achieve a legitimate military objective. It must be proportionate to the threat, and expended at the minimal force that accomplishes the mission.
Example– During the 1968 My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, military necessity was not followed. Excessive force was used when there was no direct threat, no hostile fire from unarmed civilians, with a lack of clear mission achieved. Hundreds of noncombatant men, women, children, and infant villagers were killed. The US was technically held accountable later, though it was considered inconsistent with the severity of the massacre.
Military proportionality: Force must not be excessive to the military advantage gained.
Example– This rule of military proportionality was broken by Russia during the Chechen War in 1999. Their military objective to neutralize a small number of Chechen fighters- possibly located in the city of Grozny- was disproportionate to their heavy unguided rocket and artillery bombardments. Vast portions of Grozny were flattened or damaged, and thousands of civilians who were unable to flee, were killed or injured. The scale of destruction clearly outweighed military objectives, and Russia was condemned by the UN and other human-rights organizations, though Russia is not part of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and was never held accountable.
Distinguishing combatants: There are lawful targets for military attack. Protected persons are civilian noncombatants (particularly medical and religious personnel). Protected objects are civilian areas, especially infrastructure such as hospitals or schools.
Example– After some heavy-handed military missteps (e.g. Bloody Sunday in 1972), the British forces in Northern Ireland in 1969-1998 successfully distinguished combatants by implementing “minimum force” protocols against IRA militants. The British strategically used intelligence-driven policing and arrests, non-lethal or limited force tools, containment, etc. The strategy eventually led to the IRA entering a peace process.
What Do Rules of Engagement Achieve?
To summarize, following ROE and the Geneva Conventions gives any military public legitimacy, both at home and abroad. It builds trust with partners, allows intelligence-sharing, and reassures coalitions that a military force is committed to lawful conduct and professionalism.
Any military that follows universal protocols undermines the enemy propaganda that insurgents and terrorists use to recruit fighters and gain local support. Conversely, it has been historically shown that abuse of protocols strengthens the enemy, not the war effort- e.g. the Iraq War’s Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal or Vietnam’s Phoenix Program Detentions. Both abusive strategies caused major damages to US legitimacy locally and back home.
Rules of engagement also improve operational performance- because distinguishing targets correctly reduces friendly-fire incidents, prevents wasted firepower, and keeps forces disciplined and effective.
Finally, following rules of engagement and conventions does not just protect civilians but safeguards our own forces. By reinforcing norms of lawful treatment, humane reciprocal behaviors increase the odds of protecting our own forces during warfare. While some may argue that not all adversaries respect these norms, the majority of state militaries do- so the odds of protecting our own forces increase. Especially when it comes to captured prisoners, the atrocities like mass executions, starvation, forced labor and medical experiments of earlier wars drove soldiers to demand the universal conventions that now protect future POWs.
Real-World Guidance
Rules of engagement and Geneva Conventions were written by warfighters, not armchair theorists. They knew warfare, and how to win at it- and understood the use of both short and long-term strategies. The US military should not abandon the effective lessons of ROE and international humanitarian law, learned through blood and experience.
