By Arnold J. Oliver
In Greek lore, Achilles was said to be the quintessential warrior – valiant and fierce. In dispatching Hector outside the walls of Troy, Achilles did so on his own authority and in single combat. He was an effective dealer of death, but not very good at following orders or being part of a team. He was known to brood and pout. United States Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has declared that he wants the US military to train and deploy warriors along the lines of the good old days of Homer’s Iliad. We will argue here that this is not a good idea.
Secretary Hegseth wants the US military to train and produce warriors, not soldiers. Although much can be said about Hegseth’s views on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and “wokeness” and “political correctness” in the military, it is his attitudes on international norms on the conduct of war that are the most troubling. He has gone out of his way to defend convicted war criminals, arguing that US troops should not be bound by any international laws or norms limiting the violence of war. He has said that international law is a “folly,” and that American troops should not be bound by rules made by “dignified men in mahogany rooms eighty years ago.”
Secretary Hegseth reserves special criticism for Rules of Engagement which the US military uses to regulate the circumstances under which force may be used in combat. Hegseth says that such rules are “politically correct,” and “overbearing,” and “tie the hands of our warfighters.” He declared on March 2nd, 2026, that in the conflict with Iran the U.S. would not be bound by “stupid rules of engagement.”
For a long time, military training in the United States has been deliberately aimed at building soldiers, not warriors. Soldiers work in teams, follow orders, and fight under rules of engagement intended to control the level of violence. Troops are taught to heed the Laws of Land Warfare and Geneva Conventions which make civilians and civilian infrastructure off limits for attacks. They also regulate the treatment of prisoners, mandating that they must be dealt with humanely and not tortured or abused. The level of violence must be proportionate, no more than is necessary to accomplish the mission.
George Washington, as commander of US military forces during the Revolutionary War was well known for demanding that the lives and property of non-combatants be respected. British prisoners were not to be abused, even after it was learned that the British were mistreating captured Americans. He issued specific written orders mandating good treatment of prisoners in general, and threatened severe punishment for US troops who did not heed them. Several times Washington personally ordered that those threats be carried out.
Why might Hegseth’s approach be problematic? Although he says that the new US military warriors will function as team members, historically warriors have been quite difficult to control. They very often fight against whom they want, how they want, and when they want. They abuse prisoners and civilians and steal civilian property. In fits of pique they have been known to switch sides, sometimes in the midst of a conflict.
Another problem is what to do with the warriors once the conflict has ended. Sometimes they have refused to lay down their arms when directed to do so. The post-World War I German Freikorps went on to create all sorts of mischief after the armistice, disdaining peace and civilian life. A frequently cited quote is, “People told us that the War was over. That made us laugh. We ourselves are the War. Its flame burns strongly in us. It envelops our whole being and fascinates us with the enticing urge to destroy.”
It is now generally accepted that post-Civil War America also experienced considerable violent turmoil created by veterans of the conflict. A good deal of the post-war violence of the Wild West has been attributed to them, from bank and stagecoach robberies to shoot-outs in the street. In the modern era, one might ask whether a soldier or a warrior would be more likely to launch nuclear weapons without authorization. The answer should be obvious.
Warriors are also subject to mental illness, according to research done by the US Veterans Administration. Those who harm prisoners or civilians have extremely high rates of severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as opposed to much lower rates found among traditional soldiers that do not engage in abusive behavior. Secretary Hegseth’s approach, in rejecting almost any rules of combat, can be almost guaranteed to produce more psychologically broken former combatants who require expensive long-term care.
And that brings us to the recent destruction of the girls’ school in Minab, Iran in which 165 children and staff were killed. Ordinarily, in international law, the children and the school building would be “protected” and not subject to attack. When asked about the incident Secretary Hegseth said that the US was investigating and declared that we, “never target civilian targets.” What is he talking about? Warriors do that sort of thing routinely, and have few qualms about targeting non-combatant children or schools. With no rules of engagement, such behavior is business as usual. Hegseth’s claim rings hollow in the face of his clear rejection of the laws of war.
As a US Army veteran, I ask Secretary Hegseth to reconsider the training and deployment of warriors.
Arnold “Skip” Oliver, PhD, writes for PeaceVoice and is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Heidelberg University in Tiffin, Ohio. A Vietnam veteran, he belongs to Veterans For Peace and can be reached at soliver@heidelberg.edu.
