Why Our Military Doesn’t Murder Civilians

As a two-time combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, I have seen firsthand the moral weight our service members carry when deadly force is used in America’s name. I have personally used deadly force in combat to defend myself and the lives of my Marines. That’s why the recent reporting about Pete Hegseth allegedly directing strikes against suspected drug boats should alarm every citizen who cares about the rule of law, civilian control of the military, and America’s standing in the world.

Targeting civilians or noncombatants—including suspected criminals who pose no imminent threat—is not only immoral, it is unlawful. Under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and the Geneva Conventions, U.S. forces may only engage individuals who are legitimate military targets. A drug smuggler in a boat, absent hostile intent or hostile action, does not meet that standard. The idea that a media personality or political appointee could green-light lethal force against such individuals is both legally indefensible and profoundly dangerous.

Additionally, far more is gained by capturing these alleged criminals and collecting evidence. Doing so allows us to gather intelligence that can dismantle larger criminal networks. Killing people who may hold valuable information is simply stupid.

If the allegations are true, Hegseth’s actions would violate core LOAC principles:
Distinction (the requirement to differentiate combatants from civilians),
Proportionality (the requirement to avoid excessive civilian harm),
Military Necessity (the requirement that force be used only to accomplish a legitimate military objective), and
Humanity (preventing unnecessary suffering).

Ordering or encouraging attacks that fail these tests isn’t just a technical violation—it’s a crime.

America’s military does not murder civilians precisely because we have chosen to hold ourselves to a higher standard than many of the adversaries we face. That moral discipline is not a weakness; it is one of our greatest sources of strategic strength. When we follow the law of war, we demonstrate to the world—and to ourselves—that our power is rooted in principle, not brutality.

There is also a very practical reason for this discipline: adherence to LOAC helps protect our own troops if they are captured. The more faithfully we uphold the rules of war, the stronger our claim is that our enemies must do the same for American service members. Abandoning those rules not only erodes our moral legitimacy but also places U.S. troops at greater risk.

The American people should expect—and demand—that anyone in a position of influence over military operations respects the legal and ethical frameworks that have guided our force for generations. If we allow political theater or reckless ideology to erode those foundations, we will lose far more than our credibility. We will lose the very values that separate us from those who commit atrocities without hesitation.

Our servicemembers deserve better. We the People deserve better. And the rule of law demands better.

LtCol. Joseph M. Plenzler, USMC (ret.)
Combat-decorated veteran 
Warren County, VA

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The Royal Examiner has not independently verified the statements and claims presented in the letters. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish diverse opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.