Overview of Pentagon’s Decision to Close Civilian Harm Mitigation Offices
In a significant shift in military policy, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is moving to dismantle key Pentagon offices and positions dedicated to preventing and responding to civilian harm during U.S. combat operations. According to three defense officials, the Pentagon’s Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response office, which focuses on policies to reduce the risk of noncombatant casualties, has been informed of its closure. Similarly, the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, responsible for training and procedures related to civilian protection, is also being shut down. These closures are part of a broader effort to eliminate positions at combatant commands worldwide, such as Central Command and Africa Command, that assess and mitigate risks to civilians during military operations. The decision has sparked concerns among advocates and military experts, who warn that such moves could undermine long-standing principles of protecting civilians in conflict zones.
Implications of the Decision on Civilian Protection and Military Policy
The closure of these offices and the elimination of related positions could have far-reaching consequences for the U.S. military’s ability to protect civilians in combat zones. If enforced, the decision would result in the loss of over 160 jobs within the Defense Department, including roles critical to ensuring that civilian harm is minimized during airstrikes and other operations. It remains unclear whether Secretary Hegseth intends to rescind the Pentagon’s existing policy instruction, which mandates the consideration of potential civilian risks in combat planning. Advocates and military experts argue that such a repeal would not only violate international laws of armed conflict but also contradict the U.S. military’s longstanding commitment to protecting noncombatants. The decision has also raised questions about the broader direction of military policy under the second Trump administration, with critics asserting that the move reflects a troubling shift away from humanitarian priorities.
Secretary Hegseth’s Vision for a More Aggressive Military Posture
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been a vocal proponent of returning the U.S. military to a more aggressive “warfighting” approach, which he believes has been hampered by what he sees as overly restrictive rules of engagement and a bureaucratic culture. During his Senate confirmation hearing, Hegseth faced scrutiny over his past comments, including criticism of “restrictive rules of engagement” and his use of the term “jagoff” to disparage Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers, who play a critical role in ensuring compliance with international legal standards. Despite his assertions, senior commanders—not JAG officers—are ultimately responsible for signing off on rules of engagement. Hegseth’s leadership style has already led to significant changes within the Pentagon, including a leadership purge on February 21, in which he fired the top uniformed lawyers for the Army and Air Force. The Navy’s top JAG officer, a three-star admiral, abruptly retired in December, leaving only his deputy in place as acting Navy JAG.
Pushback from Military Leaders and Civilian Harm Advocates
The decision to close the civilian harm mitigation offices has drawn sharp criticism from military leaders and advocates who emphasize the importance of protecting civilians in military operations. Retired Air Force Brigadier General Matt Isler, who previously oversaw operations against Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, strongly pushed back against the decision in a LinkedIn post. Isler argued that efforts to mitigate civilian harm are not only morally imperative but also operationally sound, as they help focus combat efforts on enemy forces, accelerate the achievement of campaign objectives, and protect warfighters. “Reducing risks of civilian harm focuses combat effects on the enemy, accelerates achievement of campaign objectives, preserves combat power, and protects warfighters,” he wrote. Similarly, civilian harm protection advocates, such as Annie Shiel of the Center for Civilians in Conflict, have condemned the move, warning that repealing these policies would betray both civilians and U.S. service members who have worked to learn from past mistakes.
Potential Consequences for Civilians and U.S. Military Operations
The closure of the civilian harm mitigation offices could have devastating consequences for civilians caught in U.S. combat operations. These programs not only worked to minimize the risk of civilian casualties but also provided a mechanism for offering redress and payments to victims of military actions. Human rights lawyer Joanna Naples-Mitchell, who represents families of civilians injured or killed in U.S. operations in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, warned that eliminating these programs would exacerbate the trauma experienced by civilian victims and deepen the moral injury felt by soldiers involved in such incidents. She emphasized that failing to protect civilians is not only a moral failure but also a strategic one, as it wastes government resources and undermines U.S. safety. “Killing innocent people is not only a moral stain,” she said, “but wastes government resources and makes Americans less safe.”
Recent Military Actions and the Broader Context of Civilian Harm
The decision to close the civilian harm mitigation offices comes amid a series of recent U.S. military actions in conflict zones. On February 23, U.S. forces launched an attack in northwest Syria that killed a senior leader of a terrorist organization affiliated with Al Qaeda. On February 12, U.S. forces enabled an airstrike in Iraq that killed five ISIS fighters. Additionally, U.S. Africa Command reported a strike targeting Al-Shabaab fighters in Somalia on February 25. These actions underscore the ongoing nature of U.S. military involvement in regions where civilian harm remains a significant concern. The civilian protection programs were initially established during the first Trump administration in response to a 2017 New York Times report on civilian casualties in Iraq. In 2022, following further investigations by the Times, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III announced reforms to military doctrine, planning, and training aimed at better mitigating the risk of civilian harm. However, these efforts have been criticized for failing to address operations supported by U.S. military aid alone, such as Israel’s campaign in Gaza. The Trump administration has also rescinded Biden-era limits on counterterrorism drone strikes and commando raids outside conventional war zones, reverting to the looser rules in place during Trump’s first term. These changes raise concerns about the U.S. military’s commitment to protecting civilians and upholding international legal standards.
