In recent years, the concept of “lethality” has become a buzzword in the military world. This term, which refers to the ability to cause death or destruction, has been embraced by many top officials in the Department of Defense. However, as with any concept, there are always potential risks and consequences that must be considered.
One Pentagon official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, expressed concern about the defense secretary’s focus on “lethality.” They warned that this could lead to “wanton killing and wholesale destruction and disregard for law.” These are strong words, and they should not be taken lightly. It is important for the Department of Defense to carefully consider the potential implications of prioritizing “lethality” above all else.
The defense secretary in question is Pete Hegseth, a former Army officer and current Fox News contributor. Since taking over the position in January, Hegseth has made it clear that his main goal is to increase the military’s “lethality.” This has led to a series of controversial decisions, including the gutting of several Pentagon programs that were designed to reduce civilian casualties.
One such program was the Civilian Casualty Mitigation Team (CCMT), which was created in 2016 under the Obama administration. The CCMT was tasked with investigating reports of civilian casualties caused by US military operations and working to prevent future incidents. However, in an effort to cut costs and streamline operations, Hegseth has decided to disband the CCMT and transfer its responsibilities to other departments.
This decision has sparked outrage among human rights organizations and military experts alike. They argue that the CCMT played a crucial role in holding the military accountable for its actions and ensuring that civilian lives were not needlessly lost. Without this oversight, there is a real risk of “wanton killing” and a disregard for international law.
But it’s not just the CCMT that has fallen victim to Hegseth’s focus on “lethality.” The Pentagon has also reduced its funding for other programs aimed at minimizing civilian casualties, such as the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team and the Civilian Harm Tracking Team. These programs may not have the catchiest names, but their purpose was crucial in preventing innocent lives from being lost in the chaos of war.
It’s understandable that the military wants to be as effective as possible in combat. After all, the lives of our brave men and women in uniform are on the line. But this cannot come at the expense of innocent civilians. We must remember that the United States is a signatory to international treaties that prohibit the deliberate targeting of civilians and require the military to take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties.
By gutting these programs, Hegseth is sending a dangerous message to the world. He is essentially saying that the US military is willing to sacrifice innocent lives in the pursuit of “lethality.” This is not only morally reprehensible, but it also puts our troops at risk. When civilians are killed, it often leads to resentment and anger towards the US, which can then be used as a recruitment tool by terrorist groups.
Furthermore, by disregarding international law, the US is also damaging its reputation as a global leader in human rights. As the world’s most powerful military, it is our responsibility to set an example and uphold the values of justice and compassion. By prioritizing “lethality” above all else, we are sending the message that these values are not a priority for us.
In conclusion, while the concept of “lethality” may sound impressive and appealing, it is not without its risks. The Pentagon must carefully consider the potential consequences of focusing solely on this goal and ensure that the protection of innocent lives remains a top priority. We cannot afford to become a nation that is known for “wanton killing and wholesale destruction.” Let us not forget that our strength lies not only in our military might but also in our moral integrity.
