SecDef — oh, sorry, SecWar — Pete Hegseth has made it clear that in his eyes rules of war are for sissies and wimps.
“Hegseth appears to argue that the US military should ignore the Geneva conventions and any international laws governing the conduct of war, and instead “unleash them” to become a “ruthless”, “uncompromising” and “overwhelmingly lethal” force geared to “winning our wars according to our own rules.'” Because if we fight fair, what happens when the other side doesn’t, huh? Maybe if we were as brutal and ruthless as our enemy, they’d learn better fast!”
This is bullshit on multiple levels. I’ll get to why it’s bullshit in a second. First though, I want to look at what’s behind it: toxic masculinity, the belief that men are brutal, violent creatures and indeed should be brutal, violent creatures
It’s not an attitude unique to Hegseth. Lots of right-wingers grumble that the militry accepting trans Americans and women and working to treat minorities and women fairly is too woke. As noted at the link, there’s not the slightest evidence we’re less effective in war, even though Sen. Ted Cruz whines that having a woman raised by two gay parents in the Army reduces the military to “pansies” — how can soldiers like that possibly compete with the savage brutes of Putin’s utterly masculine Russian military?
Ukraine, of course, proved that the Russian man-beasts were somewhat less than invincible. While boots on the ground are essential to hold territory, battles in the age of drone warfare are no longer about brute strength or which side has the most testosterone. However, as Paul Waldman puts it, “in a world where most men are unable to demonstrate that their upper-body strength justifies their superior social status, some are desperate to defend a physical hierarchy wherever it can be found.”
That ties in with toxic masculinity, an obsession of religious conservatives such as Hegseth (they’re for it, in case you were wondering). As Dr. Nerdlove puts it, toxic masculinity is the belief men are inherently, innately violent, sexually aggressive (rape is natural! [no, it isn’t]) and supposed to be dominant. Worse, “everything is about the performance rather than the reality. Even expressions of theoretical selflessness – the idea of “a real man provides”, for example – are at their core aimed at maintaining their masculine credentials rather than caring for the wellbeing of one’s spouse and family.”
Who judges your performance? Other men, as Celeste Davis points out (and Nerdlove too). Men police masculinity and judge other men for coming up too short — not tough enough, not brave enough, didn’t laugh at the rape joke, like whatever’s considered “girly.” It’s a paradox: this kind of manhood is supposed to embody toughness and strength but in the face of male criticism you’re expected to cave instantly.
Pete Hegseth, despite having served, seems to embody this performative aspect, spouting about how those Iraqis better be scared we are in total control of what happens, “we are punching them when they’re down,” and sure, bad things are going to happen to American troops but it’s war, it’s hell! You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few human eggs, amiright?
Now, as to the bullshit. Hegseth obviously wants a war that conforms to his toxic masculine priors, where savage American brutes are unleashed to do their worst to the Iranians. Calling for America to reject the Geneva Convention and hand-wave any rules of engagement — yeah, he’s one tough mother alpha male!
Like I said it’s bullshit. We do not have to be as ruthless/cruel/barbaric as the enemy to beat them. The Union beat the Confederacy without embracing slavery. We defeated the Axis without imposing a final solution. We won the Cold War without adopting a Soviet-style dictatorship. Conversely we lost in Iraq even though we used torture. The idea we have to sink to the enemy’s level does not hold up, nor does victory go to the most savage or cruel. It’s the military equivalent of the myth that respecting people’s constitutional rights would be a suicide pact.
On top of which, being cruel and savage is a bad thing. This isn’t a modern “woke” idea — Christians have been debating what constitutes just wars and legitimate tactics for centuries. In the words of the 1863 Army regulations, “Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral human beings, responsible to one another and to God.” Doing evil — murdering fishermen because just maybe possibly they’re transporting drugs — does not become justified because you’re now in the military. Or because you’re the Secretary of War or the Commander in Chief.
As Military.com puts it, “no competent military runs ‘no ROE,’ because U.S. forces remain bound by domestic orders and the law of armed conflict, including concepts such as distinction and proportionality. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual lays out those rules as operational obligations, not optional preferences.” As the article notes, rules can become cumbersome and overly lawyered but they give guidelines for what to do and not do. No torture (at least that was the rule before W decided to embrace “harsh interrogation” in his presidency). No executing helpless prisoners. No massacring civilians as happened in Vietnam (and of course, the butchering of Venezuelan fishing boats).
This isn’t purely about being noble: not being a brute is in our interest too. The enemy are more likely to surrender if we treat prisoners fairly. Civilian casualties “can create tactical blowback, degrade intelligence access, and strengthen enemy recruiting,” in the words of Military.com. Having rules of engagement that treat the enemy as humans is often a pragmatic strategy. Well, if your primary goal is winning rather than proving how masculine you are by terrorizing and crushing your enemy.
I think we know which way Hegseth and the Toddler of the United States prefer to go. The wrong one.
