In recent years, the Pentagon had taken significant strides towards minimizing civilian casualties in military operations, a response to a barrage of investigations and reports highlighting the devastating impact of U.S. military actions on noncombatants. This shift was not merely a public relations maneuver; it was a concerted effort involving the establishment of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) office and the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, both aimed at developing policies and training to protect civilians during combat.
However, a dramatic pivot is underway under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Sources within the Department of Defense have revealed that the CHMR initiatives are facing substantial cuts, with plans to eliminate key offices and programs dedicated to civilian protection. This shift raises critical questions about the future of U.S. military ethics and accountability.
Hegseth’s focus on “lethality” has been described as a return to a more aggressive military posture, reminiscent of the Trump administration’s earlier approach. During his confirmation process, Hegseth made it clear that his priority is to enhance the military’s capacity to kill, stating, “Your job is to make sure that it’s lethality, lethality, lethality. Everything else is gone.” This philosophy has already manifested in the Army’s decision to make law of war training optional, a move that some officials fear could lead to a culture of impunity and disregard for civilian life.
Wes Bryant, a former chief of civilian harm assessments at the Pentagon, expressed alarm at the dismantling of CHMR efforts, stating, “They are wiping DoD of anything related to Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response.” This sentiment is echoed by other officials who worry that the emphasis on lethality could signal a troubling shift away from military professionalism towards a more reckless approach to warfare. One official noted that the term “lethality” might just be jargon, but it could also indicate a dangerous trend towards “wanton killing and wholesale destruction.”
The implications of this shift are profound. A 2023 investigation revealed that under relaxed targeting principles during the Trump administration, civilian casualties surged in conflict zones like Somalia and Yemen. Reports from organizations such as Airwars have documented alarming spikes in civilian deaths, with some estimates indicating that in just two days of strikes, U.S. forces killed as many civilians as were killed in an entire year under the Biden administration.
The Pentagon’s current trajectory raises concerns not only about the immediate impact on civilian lives but also about the long-term consequences for U.S. military strategy and international standing. As Daphne Eviatar, director of the Security With Human Rights program at Amnesty International USA, articulated, “Military success isn’t measured by the number of people the armed forces kill; it’s measured by winning carefully-planned battles designed to achieve a strategic military goal without causing needless destruction.” The abandonment of CHMR principles could undermine these strategic goals and set a precedent for future conflicts that disregards the value of human life.
Furthermore, the potential dismantling of CHMR efforts comes at a time when the U.S. military is grappling with the consequences of previous engagements. The tragic case of Luul Dahir Mohamed and her daughter, who were killed in a U.S. airstrike in Somalia, exemplifies the catastrophic outcomes of inadequate civilian harm mitigation. Despite the Pentagon’s assurances that standard operating procedures were followed, the lack of accountability for such incidents raises serious ethical questions about the military’s commitment to protecting civilians.
As Hegseth continues to reshape the Department of Defense, experts worry that the erosion of civilian harm mitigation efforts could lead to a military culture that prioritizes aggressive tactics over ethical considerations. Bryant cautioned that this could result in a military that operates with a mindset akin to that seen in recent conflicts in Gaza, where civilian casualties have been alarmingly high.
In conclusion, the Pentagon’s current trajectory under Secretary Hegseth poses significant risks not only to civilian lives but also to the integrity and professionalism of the U.S. military. As advocates and officials call for the preservation of CHMR initiatives, the broader implications of this shift must be critically examined. The challenge lies in balancing military effectiveness with the moral imperatives of protecting civilian lives, a balance that appears increasingly precarious in the current climate.
