BREAKING: Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling annihilates Pete Hegseth for the possible “war crime” of murdering survivors of a Caribbean boat strike — and accuses him of inflicting “moral drift” on the U.S military.

A real warrior is speaking out and MAGA world is furious…

In a piece for The Bulwark entitled “Pete Hegseth, Moral Failure, and the Erosion of Military Legitimacy,” Hertling first set the stage. He stated that the U.S. military waged war so long in the Middle East that we began “losing our moral compass,” citing the horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib and the rape of a young Iraqi girl and the murder of her and her family by American soldiers as grim crystallizations of that rot.

As a result of the latter atrocity, the soldiers involved were convicted and “leaders at multiple echelons were relieved of their duties or reprimanded, and senior commanders had to confront the deeper climate failures that permitted such a catastrophe.”

Hertling went on state that the terrible crime showed that “ethical failure within a unit” is “cumulative.” Hertling worked at the Initial Military Training Command where they increased standards and “embedded character and ethical reasoning alongside marksmanship and first-aid training for recruits.”

The former Lieutenant General explained that “experiences” shape leaders and drew attention to the “two moments” that Pete Hegseth has cited as formative to his “worldview on military justice and rules of engagement.”

The first was a supposed incident in which a JAG officer whined that the rules-of-engagement were “excessively restrictive.” The second was the so-called “Tharthar Island” incident in Iraq where detainees were killed in U.S. custody. Three soldiers form Hegeth’s former unit were convicted for the crime.

“Secretary Hegseth’s public statements over the past decade reflect a belief that military legal oversight constrains warfighters, that investigations burden troops, and that commanders should be freer—rather than more disciplined—in the use of force,” wrote Hertling.

“Hegseth appears to hold these views sincerely. But sincerity does not equal sound judgment. Nor does it excuse decisions that may place the force, and the nation, at moral risk,” he added.

It’s then that Hertling shifted to discussing Hegseth’s murderous Caribbean strikes on alleged drug smugglers. Hertling stated that the situation is “far removed” from the “grinding chaos of pre-surge Iraq” and thus “far more amenable to choice, direction, and accountability.” In other words, there’s no excuse for his bloodlust.

According to new reporting from The Washington Post, Hegseth may have committed a war crime by ordering military personnel to “double tap” a small boat near Nicaragua after they’d already struck it once. Survivors were clinging to the wreckage, were illegitimate targets (not that the boat was a legitimate target to begin with) and Hegseth ordered them murdered.

“Navy officers on scene reportedly believed a second strike was unnecessary, potentially unlawful, and inconsistent with the mission,” wrote Hertling. “Yet the Post reports that senior civilian officials—including Secretary Hegseth—insisted they ‘kill everybody.’”

“If the Post report is accurate, this situation is grave. It suggests a senior civilian leader urged action that violated the law of armed conflict, basic proportionality, and the longstanding U.S. commitment to minimize harm to the defenseless,” he continued. “And it squeezes service members—who must refuse unlawful orders—between legal obligation, moral conscience, and the pressure of civilian authority.”

Hertling went onto explain that a wounded person clinging to wreckage in a situation like this would have been defined as “hors de combat” or “outside the fight” and thus could not be killed under the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

“Deliberately targeting such a person is not a tactical decision. It is a potential war crime,” he wrote. “And if a senior official urged such a strike, then we are morally bound to ask some of the most serious questions any democracy can ask: Were unlawful orders issued or implied? Did service members feel pressured to act unlawfully? Were there attempts to suppress or alter reporting? What guidance was provided, and by whom?”

“These are not partisan questions. They are constitutional ones,” he stated.

He stated that one of the “key differences” between a “professional military” and “an armed faction of lawless thugs” is that the former have a duty to refuse unlawful orders. Democrats were targeted by Trump and the broader Republican Party for suggesting as much, and now they’ve been totally vindicated.

“From all this, I’m reminded of the guidance I received back in 2008 from a soon-to-be boss: After long periods of war or political strain, the greatest danger is not the enemy. It is the erosion of the values that distinguish the U.S. military from armed groups it confronts,” wrote Hertling.

He wrote that when military leaders “disparage legal oversight, sideline JAG officers, impede the ability of the press to report, or treat accountability as the enemy, they do more than risk unlawful action.”

“They weaken the moral foundation that makes our military credible in the eyes of the American people and the world,” he continued. “Because a military that abandons its legal and ethical foundations does not protect a nation—it endangers it. A military that trades the Constitution for personal loyalty ceases to be American. And a military that fails to investigate serious allegations of unlawful conduct invites tragedy—strategic, moral, and human.”

The piece concluded with Hertling calling for “an immediate, bipartisan investigation” and said that “criminal liability” must be brought to bear if unlawful orders were issued.

“The American people can accept honest mistakes. They can accept fog-of-war judgment calls. What we as a nation should not accept is moral drift at the top of the chain of command,” he concluded.

Please like and share!