Recently, the chief Quisling at the Defense Department declared:
“We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it… if you kill Americans or threaten Americans anywhere on Earth, we will hunt you down, without apology and without hesitation, and we will kill you.”
“We didn’t start this war” has a familiar ring. In Orwell’s 1984, the Party constantly rewrites reality. The past adjusts to fit the present need.
But rhetoric is one thing. What followed was more troubling:
“So many of our traditional allies wring their hands and clutch their pearls… America… is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history. No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy-building exercises, no politically correct wars. We fight to win, and we don’t waste time or lives.”
As veterans, it is that phrase - “no stupid rules of engagement” - that stops us cold.
Rules of Engagement (ROE) are not sentimental restraints imposed by timid allies. They are operational directives that tell service members when, where, and how force may be used. They translate law into battlefield practice.
Above them sits the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) - the binding international framework that governs how professional military forces wage war. It draws from treaties such as the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, along with centuries of customary law.
The LOAC establishes enduring legal obligations:
Distinction - target combatants, not civilians
Proportionality - avoid excessive collateral damage relative to military advantage
Military Necessity - use only the force required to achieve a legitimate objective
Humane Treatment - protect prisoners, the wounded, and noncombatants
Prevention of Unnecessary Suffering - prohibit weapons and tactics that cause indiscriminate harm
Command Responsibility - require leaders to ensure compliance
ROE must comply with these legal standards.
These principles were not written by naïfs or pacifists. They were forged in the aftermath of industrial slaughter. They exist because war unleashes the worst impulses of nations and men - and because it is individuals who bleed.
Nations adhere to the law of armed conflict not out of weakness, but out of enlightened self-interest. Reciprocity matters. Legitimacy matters. Discipline matters.
And most of all, protection of our own troops matters.
Do all adversaries comply? No. Do American forces sometimes fail? Yes.
But publicly disparaging the very rules that operationalize restraint sends a dangerous message. It suggests that discipline is optional. That constraints are political inconveniences. That escalation is proof of strength.
Abandoning restraint does not make America more feared. It makes conflict less predictable. It increases the risks to captured personnel. It strains alliances. It erodes the legitimacy that shields our service members long after the shooting stops.
It is easy to mock “hand-wringing allies.” It is easy to sneer at “politically correct wars.”
It is harder to explain to a captured American service member why we decided the rules no longer applied.
War without rules does not make America stronger.
It makes Americans - especially those in uniform - more vulnerable.
And the people who will pay that price will not be speechwriters or television personalities.
They will be the 19-year-olds carrying rifles.
War can turn good people into monsters. I was in Vietnam when Lt. William Calley committed or ordered murder of 22 unarmed civilians. I remember the debate during his trial. I think that half the country felt all was fair in love and war and no crime had been committed. Although he was convicted, he served just three and a half years under house arrest. Only Epstein got a better deal. To abandon ROE would be a travesty. It would legitimize the actions of Lt. Calley and others like him. Our troops committed hundreds of acts that were contrary to our ROE and never prosecuted. That is wrong and should never be legitimized.