After symbolically renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War, Hegseth bluntly declared: “We intend to kill more.” This short but weighty sentence not only lays bare the essence of U.S. military policy but also reflects an approach that disregards the boundaries of ethics, human rights, and international law.
From Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan
Throughout history, Washington has consistently relied on mass violence as a tool of policy to preserve its geopolitical interests and demonstrate global power. The atomic bombings of Japan instantly turned hundreds of thousands of innocent people to ashes. The wars in Vietnam and Iraq, with massive aerial and ground operations, plunged countless families into grief and displacement.
Violence Continued in the Present Era: Gaza as a Clear Example
This new doctrine is not merely a slogan; U.S. support for the ruthless killing of civilians in Gaza is its practical manifestation. Repeated strikes, destruction of infrastructure, and the imposition of siege are direct outcomes of the “maximum lethality” policy that Hegseth boasts of. These actions have not only created a humanitarian catastrophe but also fueled regional and global tensions, severely tarnishing America’s image in world opinion.
A Clear Violation of Global Law and Morality
The “maximum lethality” doctrine is not only inhumane but also in direct contradiction with fundamental principles of international law. The Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, and human rights norms all require the protection of civilians and prohibit large-scale assaults on civilian populations. Persisting with this approach exposes the United States to worldwide condemnation, diplomatic isolation, and weakened trust among allies.
History—from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Iraq and Afghanistan—shows that maximum violence has never brought political stability or lasting security, producing instead resistance, hatred, and multilayered crises.
Roots and Hidden Motivations
Such a policy is the product of a blend of hegemonic ambitions, pressure from the military–industrial lobby, and domestic competition for demonstrations of strength. The arms industry and influential economic and political groups push for the use of maximum violence as a tool to safeguard their interests.
Contrary to American politicians’ claims, this approach is not strategic at all. From a human and moral standpoint, it is indefensible. The killing of civilians and the infliction of widespread suffering erode U.S. credibility and undermine its standing as a responsible and legitimate global actor.
Experience has shown that the “maximum lethality” strategy has always ended in failure. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan clearly illustrate enormous human and financial costs, unfulfilled strategic objectives, and the intensification of global resentment. This policy has not brought enduring security; instead, it has fueled resistance movements, regional crises, and widespread instability.
The recent case of Gaza, supported by the United States, repeats this cycle of failure: rising civilian deaths, worsening humanitarian disasters, and flaring international tensions. While such a doctrine may have temporary tactical deterrent effects, in the long run it diminishes America’s legitimacy and endangers global security.
Ending this inhumane approach is only possible through global pressure, adherence to international law, and insistence on peaceful solutions. Continuing with maximum violence not only fails to deliver results but also multiplies humanitarian and political crises, cementing America’s image as a ruthless actor on the world stage.