nuclear-news

US Military Doctrine – Goodbye to Geneva

1 October 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/us-military-doctrine-goodbye-to-geneva/

Recent developments in the United States of America and the performances of President Trump and his Secretary of War Pete Hegseth should be concerning to us all.

There are indeed reports and analyses indicating that Secretary Hegseth is pursuing a significant overhaul of the U.S. military’s legal framework, with the stated goal of empowering commanders and adopting a more aggressive approach to warfare.

Policy Shifts and International Law

The planned changes have raised concerns among observers about their potential impact on the international rules-based order.

Overhauling Military Lawyers

Reports note that Hegseth has made it a priority to “retrain” military lawyers (the Judge Advocate General’s corps, or JAGs) so they provide advice that allows commanders to “pursue more aggressive tactics” and take a “more lenient approach in charging soldiers with battlefield crimes.” Critics of the JAG corps have argued that their interpretation of rules of engagement, such as the requirement to positively identify an enemy combatant, has been too restrictive.

Historical Context and Criticism

This effort is not happening in a vacuum. During the George W. Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks, JAG lawyers resisted the administration’s view that it could lawfully direct the military to ignore the Geneva Conventions regarding detainees.

A Stated Vision for Warfare

In his writings, Hegseth has been explicit about his philosophy, questioning the value of the Geneva Conventions and suggesting that the U.S. military should fight wars on its own terms, with less regard for the opinions of other countries or international courts. He has publicly argued that modern fighters “face lawyers as much as enemies” and that adversaries should receive “bullets, not lawyers.”

When evaluating these developments, it is helpful to consider the following perspectives:

A Deliberate Agenda

The evidence suggests that the actions of Secretary Hegseth are not ad hoc but part of a coherent, long-held belief system aimed at reducing legal constraints on the battlefield, which he views as detrimental to a “warrior ethos.”

A Contentious Debate

This shift represents one side of a long-standing and profound debate within military and international circles. It pits a view prioritising maximum operational freedom against one that holds that adhering to laws of war is a strategic and moral necessity, a stance historically defended by military lawyers themselves.

The potential consequences of altering the U.S. military’s relationship with international humanitarian law are a significant subject of global concern and analysis.

October 3, 2025 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, USA