Letters to the Editor published on December 3, 2025.

A troubling incident involving U.S. military operations underscores the ethical complexities of modern warfare and challenges the commitment to international humanitarian law. Recently, a report revealed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a controversial directive prior to a missile strike on a vessel believed to be engaged in drug smuggling. This directive—ordering the military to “kill them all”—has sparked significant concern regarding adherence to established norms governing the treatment of combatants and non-combatants during armed conflicts.

On September 2, following an initial missile strike that reportedly incapacitated the boat’s crew, two survivors were spotted clinging to wreckage. Despite their vulnerable state, an officer’s subsequent order for a second missile strike was issued to comply with Hegseth’s directive. This decision raises serious ethical questions, as it blatantly disregards the principles outlined in the Geneva Conventions, which protect shipwrecked individuals and prohibit intentional harm against them, mandating humane treatment and medical care.

Analysts argue that this incident could signify a dangerous shift in military protocol if such actions are not publicly condemned. The Geneva Conventions clearly articulate the responsibilities of parties engaged in armed conflict to ensure the humane treatment of all individuals, regardless of their status as combatants or civilians. The tragic events of September 2 have prompted concern that the dismissal of these vital humanitarian standards could become a norm rather than an exception.

Critics highlight that a failure to uphold these values tarnishes the integrity of the U.S. military and casts a shadow over its longstanding commitment to conduct operations within the bounds of international law. The implications of Hegseth’s directive are especially alarming, raising fears that militaristic approaches lacking ethical considerations could jeopardize the safety of American troops in future encounters.

This incident, juxtaposed with Hegseth’s controversial history regarding the prosecution of military actions during previous conflicts, emphasizes the importance of reinforcing legal and ethical standards. As discussions around military conduct continue, it remains imperative for the public and military leadership to actively engage in dialogue regarding the moral obligations associated with warfare, ensuring that strategies are firmly rooted in respect for human dignity and the preservation of life.

The examination of this event serves as a critical reminder of the broader implications of military decisions and the necessity of maintaining a consistent commitment to humanity, even amid the complexities of conflict.