In this essay for The Free Press, Elliot Ackerman examines Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s approach to rules of engagement and the legal boundaries that govern the use of military force.
Drawing on his experience during the Second Battle of Fallujah, Ackerman explains the difference between rules of engagement, which commanders can adjust, and the law of war, which is rooted in treaties such as the Geneva Conventions.
Rules of Engagement vs. Law of War
Ackerman argues that Hegseth often conflates aggressive rules of engagement with violations of the law of war. The distinction matters because commanders may loosen battlefield rules, but they cannot authorize war crimes.
Lessons from Fallujah
The essay recalls a deadly false surrender outside Fallujah and explains why such conduct is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. For Ackerman, the episode illustrates why lawful war depends on boundaries that cannot be discarded under pressure.
Military Accountability
Ackerman connects those lessons to recent reports about U.S. strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats near Venezuela. If survivors were killed in a follow-on strike, he argues, the issue is not merely one of policy but of international law and military accountability.