Opinion: The dangerous logic behind ‘no stupid rules of engagement’

Operation Epic Fury, according to United States Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is to be fought “on our terms, with maximum authorities”. This time Hegseth asserts, there will be “no stupid rules of engagement” and “no politically correct wars”. It will proceed without “traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch their pearls hemming and hawing about the use of force”. What does this strange collection of declarations even mean?

‘On our terms’ is clear – the United States has attacked a country absent of any aggressive attack or imminent, direct threat. This is illegal under international law. Article 51 of the UN charter only allows for self-defence or collective self-defence in the face of attack. What this allows has long been contested. Prior to the 2003 War against Iraq, there was some customary acceptance that self-defence might include “pre-emptive” self-defence, that a country could defend itself if an attack was imminent, even if it hadn’t yet taken place. The current action blows well past this precedent. Reporting suggests that, just the day before, the Iranian government was genuinely negotiating a nuclear deal that appeared to agree to all that the United States administration was seeking. “On our terms” suggests that even past attempts to justify aggressive actions under Article 51 are no longer viewed as necessary.

‘With maximum authorities’ is new. When licencing the use of force against Saddam Hussein in 1990, the UN Security Council mandated ‘all necessary means’. But where ‘necessary’ imposes limits, ‘maximum’ removes them: ‘maximum authorities’ suggest that the military have been authorised to use of force without constraint.

This is clarified when he goes on to say they will no longer be constrained by ‘stupid rules of engagement’. Typically, rules of engagement are based on International Humanitarian Law, drawn up to ensure that military action minimises the use of force to that which enables the mission to be achieved, balances military advantage and civilian harm and avoids targeting non-combatants. Rules of engagement enable soldiers to surrender and live, outlaw torture and abuse of prisoners of war and protect civilians from the worst excesses of war. Now Hegseth has said there will be ‘no stupid rules of engagement’ in Iran, why should other militaries adhere to any rules of engagement in their conduct? This explicit rejection of a rules-based international order not only opens the door for abuses to be perpetrated against enemy combatants, but for violence against civilian populations to be justified in the same way.

‘No politically correct wars’ is at the same time a deeply confusing statement and an insight into what motivates this strange speech. “Politically correct” was originally used to describe language that attempted to be inclusive and inoffensive. It has often been used to mock the perceived excesses of do-gooders and to suggest that people who use such language are so fearful of giving offense that they are unable to speak plainly. In implying that past wars have been politically correct, Hegseth is telling us that he thinks the constraints he has dismissed above were excessive and that the people who advocated for them were too fearful to say what they really believed: that war should be unconstrained. In going on to say that the United States’ traditional allies “wring their hands and clutch their pearls hemming and hawing about the use of force”, he dismisses all those nations that have stood by the US over the years as misguided do-gooders.

At heart, Hegseth delivers a gendered attack: those who hesitate on the use of force are womanly, feminine. In a man’s world of war – in Hegseth’s world – to be constrained is to be feminised, to be emasculated. A real man, on this view, takes what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants – he is unconstrained. Only a woman cares how the things they do impact on others. But as usual, Hegseth’s critique reveals his own fears and weakness. Hegseth admits ‘war is hell’. But to enter that hell – as New Zealand and those other allies Hegseth paints as hesitant and cowardly have done – with a willingness to put yourself at greater risk to protect the innocent and to constrain the force you use to the minimum required when you do, is bravery.

Dr Bethan Greener is Professor of International Relations. She is also currently Head of School for People, Environment and Planning at Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University. Dr Greener has published extensively on international security-related topics, including New Zealand defence issues.