In his September 30, 2025, meeting with flag rank (general and admiral) officers and senior NCOs of all the military services, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made remarks regarding ‘rules of engagement’ that, in the view of someone who spent 20 years in uniform, including two tours in Vietnam, were troubling and highly problematic.
The first troubling thing was his calling them ‘stupid rules of engagement.’ Rules of Engagement (ROE) are directives that govern how and when the U.S. military can use force. They are based on the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Rules of Land Warfare. The general framework for ROE is contained in service doctrinal manuals, such as the Army’s Field Manual, FM6-27, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Land Warfare, based on the Law of Armed Conflict, which regulates the conduct of warfare, aiming to protect noncombatants and to limit the means and methods of warfare.
Here’s what Hegseth had to say about it. “We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement.”
Now, sending military troops to patrol the streets of American cities with this instruction is frightening. But, frankly, sending them to a foreign war zone with this attitude is equally scary.
For those who might have slept through world history classes, the Geneva Conventions were not adopted because of political correctness or ‘wokeness.’ Their origins date from the mid-19th century, and were influenced by the experiences that Henry Dunant, a Swiss businessman, had during the Battle of Solferino in 1859. After witnessing the horrible conditions that wounded soldiers suffered, he pushed for the establishment of national relief societies to provide care for the injured and an international agreement to protect them. His actions led to the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863 and the adoption of the first Geneva Convention in 1864, which aimed to improve the treatment of wounded soldiers on the battlefield.
Over time, and particularly during the two World Wars, the Geneva Conventions underwent a series of changes through treaties and protocols, addressing the need for stronger protections for both combatants and noncombatants alike.
The core principles of the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is a party, are based on fundamental humanitarian principles and designed to mitigate the effects of war. Their main aim is to protect those who are not participating in hostilities, such as unarmed civilians, medical personnel, and those who are out of the fight due to injury or capture.
All parties to a conflict are expected to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and refrain from attacks on civilians. Torture, inhumane treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity are prohibited for all persons protected by the conventions.
The Geneva Conventions reflect a global consensus on the need to uphold human dignity even in times of war. ROE implements these principles and reminds soldiers and their leaders of the need to adhere to the spirit and letter of the law of war.
ROE and the laws of land warfare are necessary for several reasons. First and foremost, they ensure that military operations are conducted within the bounds of both international and U.S. law. They are designed to minimize harm to noncombatants, including both civilians and those military personnel who are hors de combat, which is a fundamental principle of military law taught to every member of the military, regardless of rank, from the first day of training. ROE promotes ethical and humane conduct in military operations, ensuring that our military personnel act in accordance with international standards of conduct.
This not only protects those who are downrange of a military person’s weapons, but it also protects the person wielding that weapon. When a party to a conflict fails to operate in accordance with the laws of warfare, as Hegseth seems to suggest the U.S. military should do, its adversaries have no motivation to do so, subjecting American military personnel to inhumane treatment if they are captured.
Words have consequences, and even if the things implied by Hegseth’s words are never implemented, the thought has been planted and is likely to harm how the American military is viewed worldwide in ways that could someday come back to haunt us.
I don’t know if this devilish djinn can be put back into the bottle, but I certainly recommend in the strongest terms that someone make the effort to do so. We should be focusing on what kind of military we really want. Do we want one that can defend the country and the Constitution effectively, while at the same time, upholding the foundational principles that have made this country great? Or, do we want a military of people who ‘shoot first, and ID the corpses? Do we want a military where hazing, sexual assault, and abuse are such that they drive some military personnel to suicide? I sincerely hope that most Americans prefer the former over the latter.
Charles A. Ray spent 20 years in the U.S. Army with two tours in Vietnam. He retired as a senior US diplomat, serving 30 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, with assignments as ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Republic of Zimbabwe, and was the first American consul general in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He also served in senior positions with the Department of Defense and is a member of The Steady State.
Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 290 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.
