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.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude,
The AIMN Team
God in heaven, when is this fool and his mercenaries going to be stopped?
Hegseth is a foaming at the mouth rabid right wing nationalist maniac. I might be wrong but I reckon his next step will be remove women and, to be blunt, non-white military commaders from the higher defence ranks.
I also foresee loyalty tests looming to also weed out those who won’t bend the knee to Trump (and Hegseth) and being fired. Let’s face it, the US is well and fornicated.
The US is in the process of becoming a rogue state. We, the rest of the world, should all be extremely wary about the changes that is happening within the US military, as it seems that the current administration wants to take us all to war, with China, and anyone else they don’t like.
After coming late to the action in 2 world wars who would have expected the USA to be the one to set off the next one? A rather nasty one , by the look of things . Not one to call a trusted ally now!
In regard to International law,the Trump administration has done two things amongst all the mayhem that change things.
First, Trump appointed people to positions of power whose only qualifications were careers built on provocative rhetoric. The result being the rhetoric has gone off the scale – the damage this’ll do is yet to be seen.
Second, Trump dropped the curtain. All of these outrageous actions of the Trump administration, including aiding and abetting genocide, have been a part of US foreign policy in the past – they were just hidden in plain sight – what’s the difference between Obama’s drone assassination program and Trump murdering people in boats in international waters?
The US and Israel have placed themselves above International law through out their existences.
What is of concern here is the reaction of the rest of the world.
Who stood up and said this is wrong as the US and Israel tear down any hope of International law and a ‘rules-based order’? The global South has, Ireland, Norway, Spain, the people of Italy (not the government) have.
Who stood up and condemned Trump for placing sanctions on the ICC and ICJ? Certainly not Albanese and Wong. Clearly Albanese was too busy writing his speech to the UN about how good is International law.
When Trump tore up trade agreements with other countries in breach of WTO (laws?) rules, who approached other countries to support each other in the face of the damage it would do to their economies? China for one did, and when it approached Australia apparently it got a very rude rejection.
Gonggongche is correct to note that this outlaw behaviour is in essence, nothing new.
The US teaches its military delusional values, beliefs and attitudes, which explains a lot.
The delusion of US exceptionalism is part of the national culture as these extracts from the US War College journal Parameters clearly show.
From Parameters Summer 1997, pp. 4-14.
We are entering a new American century, in which we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without precedent…
There will be more democracy–that deft liberal form of imperialism–and greater popular refusal of democracy. One of the defining bifurcations of the future will be the conflict between information masters and information victims…
For those individuals and cultures that cannot join or compete with our information empire, there is only inevitable failure (of note, the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and community).
The attempt of the Iranian mullahs to secede from modernity has failed, although a turbaned corpse still stumbles about the neighborhood…
Our victims volunteer.These noncompetitive cultures, such as that of Arabo-Persian Islam or the rejectionist segment of our own population, are enraged. Their cultures are under assault; their cherished values have proven dysfunctional, and the successful move on without them. The laid-off blue-collar worker in America and the Taliban militiaman in Afghanistan are brothers in suffering…
The genius, the secret weapon, of American culture is the essence that the elites despise: ours is the first genuine people’s culture. It stresses comfort and convenience–ease–and it generates pleasure for the masses. We are Karl Marx’s dream, and his nightmare…
America has figured it out, and we are brilliant at operationalizing our knowledge, and our cultural power will hinder even those cultures we do not undermine. There is no “peer competitor” in the cultural (or military) department. Our cultural empire has the addicted–men and women everywhere–clamoring for more. And they pay for the privilege of their disillusionment.
American culture is criticized for its impermanence, its “disposable” products. But therein lies its strength. All previous cultures sought ideal achievement which, once reached, might endure in static perfection. American culture is not about the end, but the means, the dynamic process that creates, destroys, and creates anew. If our works are transient, then so are life’s greatest gifts–passion, beauty, the quality of light on a winter afternoon, even life itself. American culture is alive.
This vividness, this vitality, is reflected in our military…
We will see countries and continents divide between rich and poor in a reversal of 20th-century economic trends. Developing countries will not be able to depend on physical production industries, because there will always be another country willing to work cheaper. The have-nots will hate and strive to attack the haves. And we in the United States will continue to be perceived as the ultimate haves. States will struggle for advantage or revenge as their societies boil.
Beyond traditional crime, terrorism will be the most common form of violence, but transnational criminality, civil strife, secessions, border conflicts, and conventional wars will continue to plague the world, albeit with the “lesser” conflicts statistically dominant. In defense of its interests, its citizens, its allies, or its clients, the United States will be required to intervene in some of these contests. We will win militarily whenever we have the guts for it.
There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault.
To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing…
Page after page of delusional drivel.
I almost think it is time for a revolution, for all “normal” people to stand up and just say NO to all this illegal and inhumane crap that Chump and his administration demand they do. Time for the masses to stand up and shut them down.
In times past I used to think, perhaps naively, that there was a sense of nobility in war where defensive conflict could not be averted. Now it is all about “win at all costs” and believing that “the end justifies the means”. Given the continual abasement of internationally recognised standards and jurisdictions by bull dog USA and it’s baying pup Israel, how and why do Australian politicians remain in alliance with these two outliers?
Tim Miller and Bill Kristol on The Bulwark commented on one positive, ie. when Hegseth or Trump paused for applause, the military audience did not take the bait, but sat stony faced….
One would like to be privy to private conversations these senior military officers had afterwards….. nonetheless, Trump and Hegseth have ‘their’ social &/or news media content for promotion, once edited.
Orwell’s “1984” strikes again!
O’Brien to Smith during interrogation — We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing.
And from the War College journal extracts above — We are entering a new American century, in which we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful… America has figured it out, and we are brilliant at operationalizing our knowledge, and our cultural power…
America don’t want the UN – They see it as their role, so they want the power but not the responsibility or direct action, only when it suits them. No single country can be allowed to assume that kind of role or power globally. And member nations (security council or permanent members) should not have the right to veto the majority of nations at the UN, which America do all the time, again to suit their interests. It’s the very same neoliberal policy worldwide, undermine what you don’t like then privatise it or control it yourself.
” undermine what you don’t like then privatise it or control it yourself.”
Exactly Jon.
They created the World Trade Organisation, but have hobbled it for years by refusing to appoint replacements to the WTO appellant body, and cutting funding.
So it’s not just the UN that suffers from US manipulation.
It is, as you say, worldwide.
I’m horrified at the stupidity of announcing to the world in advance when and where 800 generals and admirals – well as the Commander in Chief – will be gathered. Enemy states or terrorists thrive on info such as that.
Roswell
Those 800 Generals and Admirals would be fully conversant with the fundamental risk management protocol of never having all of your critical military (and naval and airforce) top personnel in the one place at the one time: it is for the military 101 in minimising exposure to losing those personnel in one enemy hit.
Clearly Hegseth, a light weight when it comes to military protocols didn’t think of this – all of these senior personnel would have been flying in on separate, segregated aircraft precisely to avoid catastrophic loss in the event of an accident but then were placed in one auditorium where they were sitting targets for US enemies.
Hegseth is an ideologue and an extreme threat to US and global security – he has to go!
I omitted from my comment above Hegseth’s one liner FAFO which went flat with his audience – I didn’t know what it meant either.
Here is the context of what he said to all those Generals and Admirals:
Speaking at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, Hegseth said that America’s enemies would ‘FAFO’, which stands for ‘Fuck around and find out,’ if they chose to challenge its military might.
‘From this moment forward the only mission of the newly restored Department of War is this: war fighting, preparing for war and preparing to win,’ Hegseth continued, saying, however, that they do not wish for war, touting their ‘strength through peace’.
FAFO is a term used online by Highschool kids !!
Horrible Hogshit, secretary of state for bulging pustular egotistical violence.., and a Trump selection for obedient delusional inadequate non-professional ranting, childish, vomitous, inflammatory. Nightmarish. (You could carve a better man than this out of actual hogshit…) May all Trumpery be eliminated thoroughly, a la Caligula.
Regardless of anything to sustain us and our sprog physically, art and language are the things that sustain our minds, and by the borders behind which we accumulate, our cultures.
America, from its ‘white trash’ beginnings has been wholly unsuccessful at forming a meaningful benevolent culture, preferring along its way to instill a paranoiac, defensive, invasive and belligerent language of conquest and competition by any means. When it became its corrupted sine qua non, it has artlessly smeared it across the world.
By the fiat of T-Rump and his flunkies, it appears to have attained its lunatic narcissistic zenith. But for how long? The rest of the world is well aware that from that zenith, America has a short time before it plunges into its own oblivion – it’s already crumbling at the edges as it approaches an incomprehensible jibberish.
Hegseth, an utter dud hampster running his ‘white christo-fascist’ narrative, with SFA experience except that of a deluded foghorn – suits T-Rump well. Here’s one excellent response to his bugled delusions:
“Lt. Col. Amy McGrath, the record-breaking Marine Corps fighter pilot, called out the absurdity of Pete Hegseth’s new ‘male-level’ combat standards policy — which he touted during his multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded photo-op today — setting the record straight that combat jobs never had separate standards for women.
“Pete Hegseth still has a lot to learn, I think, unfortunately. When I flew my combat missions, there was not a set male standard and a female standard for flying an aircraft onto the back of an aircraft carrier. You can either do it or you can’t.
And so I feel like it’s the notion of standing up there and saying to the generals and admirals who all, by the way, know that there were never separate combat standards for males and females, you know, combat jobs have had one standard for a long time. And part of when we opened combat jobs to women, those of us who were in those jobs wanted one standard to be set. And it was.”
– Retired Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Amy McGrath is a former fighter pilot who made history as the first woman to fly a combat mission for the Marine Corps in an F/A-18 fighter jet. During her 20-year military career, she flew 89 combat missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, serving with distinction in one of the most demanding roles in the armed forces.
For a children’s book that gives groundbreaking women in the military, past and present, the respect they deserve, we highly recommend “Heroism Begins With Her: Inspiring Stories of Bold, Brave, and Gutsy Women in the U.S. Military” for ages 9 and up at https://www.amightygirl.com/heroism-begins-with-her
For books for young readers that honor the service of women in the military, visit our blog post “The Price of Peace: A Mighty Girl Recognizes Veterans” at https://www.amightygirl.com/blog?p=12356
For books for all ages about trailblazing female pilots throughout history, visit our blog post, “30 Books About Boundary-Breaking Female Pilots,” at https://www.amightygirl.com/blog?p=20960
To see more stories from A Mighty Girl, you can sign-up for A Mighty Girl’s free weekly email newsletter at https://www.amightygirl.com/forms/newsletter “
How really does America feel about war? Here’s one view, a few recent stats from America. And I add that America is running out of resources to wage war, and not only that, having raped its own environment and ordinary folk, is rapidly crumbling into an isolated state incapable of its own sustainment.
The self-image of America, it’s abysmal exceptionalism and revisionism sees its understanding of war and the military as something other than how the rest of the world has come to see it. As it clings tenuously to notions of ‘glory’ and ‘supremacy’ it has become a withering greedy fool without heart or home.
Since at least the 20th century wars it came late to or started, America’s political hubris has infected the already aristocratically corrupted imperial ‘West’. America has prevailed in its exploitative, ego-fixated conquest to the extent that it has cowed the political heads of Europe and its colonies to the point of abject dysfunction and the alienation of ordinary citizens. The citizens may become enlightened, but what can they ever do, as history reveals that the rot comes from the head down?
Sooner rather than later, as the collective of political Americans become their oxymorons embodied, surely it’ll be the death of their lingua franca, and their idea of themselves and the rest of the world?
Well done, Clakka. My new inferior laptop and mouse reduce me to ragey collapse, so your long relevant efforts carry us forward regardless. HO!