Pete Hegseth, who was chosen by President-elect Donald Trump to be Secretary of Defense, gained notoriety for, among other things, his sharp criticism of the rules for US troops in combat on Fox News. After serving in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Army National Guard, he argued that American soldiers were being hampered by excessive constraints in fighting jihadist extremists who were “fighting like savages.”

“In some cases, our units were so constrained by rules and regulations and political correctness that we even doubted ourselves,” Hegseth wrote last year in his book “The War on Warriors.” “This has to come to an end. Count me out Monday morning quarterbacking – I’m on the side of the American Warfighter all the time.”

At his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Hegseth is likely to be asked about allegations of sexual assault, excessive drinking and mismanagement in his previous jobs.

But some current and former military officers say Hegseth’s tough comments prosecuting war crimes against U.S. troops — and his advocacy on behalf of service members condemned by fellow soldiers — risk undermining core principles that have shaped the American military for decades.

A current U.S. military officer, who did not want to be named, said Hegseth’s stance “should be disqualifying.” And Paul Eaton, a retired Army major general, said Hegseth’s past support for service members accused or convicted of battlefield crimes could have implications for the military.

“He condoned murder and execution,” Eaton said, referring to Hegseth’s previous interventions in cases as a Fox News contributor. “This is going to be a huge problem for every senior noncommissioned officer out there, every leader down to the squad leader.”

Tim Parlatore, Hegseth’s lawyer, said that Trump’s nominee used colorful language to express his views on overly restrictive rules of engagement for U.S. troops but that his critics misinterpreted his comments.

“He is in no way advocating that anyone not follow the law of armed conflict,” Parlatore said. “He says the interpretation at the local level is too restrictive.”

From the beginning of their training to every promotion throughout their career. U.S. troops receive training and education on lawful conduct in combat. Commanders view training as essential to the force for both moral and practical reasons.

Adhering to the code ensures troops maintain discipline and focus on military objectives rather than criminal behavior, current and former military officers say. The commission of war crimes and atrocities also potentially endangers troops who are later captured by the enemy.

“The behavior of those who fight must be limited,” said Gary Solis, a Marine veteran who served in Vietnam and taught at the United States Military Academy at West Point. “Otherwise it’s nothing more than murder.”

I’m trying to reassure the legislators

Although Hegseth has publicly questioned whether the Geneva Conventions are relevant to modern warfare against extremists who don’t follow them, the former Fox News contributor has tried to clarify his position to lawmakers.

In recent meetings with Republican senators, Hegseth has told lawmakers that he has no intention of abandoning the Geneva Conventions or the U.S. military code, a source close to Hegseth and a Republican congressional aide said. Hegseth told them he believes military members should continue to comply.

Parlatore said Hegseth’s view was that the Geneva Conventions were shaped primarily by the World War II era and did not take into account the types of adversaries the U.S. has faced recently, such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State terrorist group.

Given that these militants do not represent internationally recognized governments, do not wear uniforms, make no distinction between civilians and combatants, and respect no rules for prisoners of war, Hegseth believes that the Geneva Conventions “could use an update” to reflect these new realities to reflect the battlefield. Parlatore said.

According to Parlatore, Hegseth’s criticism focuses on the way international agreements and U.S. military law are interpreted by military lawyers and that the rules of engagement for troops in combat are overly restrictive and impractical.

But in “The War on Warriors,” Hegseth appears to reject the Geneva Conventions, which were heavily revised after World War II. He writes that U.S. troops “should not fight according to rules written by worthy men in mahogany rooms eighty years ago,” an apparent reference to the Geneva Conventions.

Hegseth also writes disparagingly about both international law and the US military’s rules of engagement, which he said were too cautious in its operations on the ground.

“I could write five thousand more words about the ins and outs of the philosophy of warfare, the folly of international law, and the crazy maze of rules of engagement,” Hegseth wrote. “But if we’re going to put our guys in the fight – and they should be guys – we have to let them go to win. You need them to be the most ruthless. The most uncompromising. The most overwhelmingly deadly they can be.”

Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, said the armed forces’ comprehensive training on the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. military’s code of conduct is designed to overcome the chaos that arises on the battlefield.

“In the fog of war, in moments of chaos, people very easily lose sight of their legal constraints and so they need to be made clear that this is important and cannot be ignored,” Fidell said. “These rules of engagement are there for a reason. They do it because it is right and because it is the law.

Lobbying for pardons

During Trump’s first term, Hegseth caught the president’s attention when he championed the cause of three service members convicted or charged with war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. In appearances on Fox News, Hegseth helped convince Trump to intervene on her behalf.

In one case, Trump pardoned Clint Lorance, a former Army lieutenant who was serving a 19-year sentence for the murder of two civilians in Afghanistan, after he was convicted by a jury of his military peers. Members of Lorance’s unit testified that the two civilians posed no threat.

Trump also pardoned Maj. Matthew Golsteyn, an Army special forces officer who was charged with murder for killing an unarmed Afghan he believed to be a Taliban bomb maker. And Trump, supported by Hegseth and other conservative commentators, reversed the demotion of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was acquitted of murder charges but found guilty of posing in a photo next to a captured dead militant.

In all three cases, Hegseth argued that accused or convicted military personnel were being treated unfairly and that the circumstances of each situation needed to be taken into account.

Parlatore said Hegseth did not condone war crimes but disagreed with the outcome of the trials in those cases. Hegseth also pleaded no contest to a case involving members of his regiment who were found guilty in connection with the killing of three unarmed Iraqi men.

Trump’s interventions came despite the objections of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. Both senior defense officials claimed that Trump’s actions would weaken the military’s justice system and send the wrong signal to troops.

In “The War on Warriors,” Hegseth praised Trump’s moves and suggested that international war crimes laws should not apply to extremists who oppose them.

“What do you do when your enemy does not comply with the Geneva Conventions?” Hegseth wrote. “We asked that question all the time – especially if we want to win. And despite all the briefings, PowerPoint slides and lectures, it was never clear.”

Current and former officers and military justice experts say Hegseth’s statements and allegations raise serious questions about whether he would uphold the military’s core principles regarding conduct on the battlefield or even seek to interfere in legal proceedings.

They point out that the U.S. military’s code, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, was enacted 75 years ago by Congress, not the Biden administration. It takes into account the principles of the Geneva Conventions and the international law of armed conflict regarding the treatment of captured combatants, the distinction between civilian and military targets, appropriate responses and the avoidance of unnecessary suffering.

“Americans fight the way we do because we believe we are on the side of good,” said Jason Dempsey, who served as an Army infantry officer for 22 years and was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. “Openly abandoning this high ground from the start would be worrisome to our allies and a boon to our enemies.”

Dempsey, now an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security think tank, acknowledged that some American soldiers violated the laws of war. “These are things that the U.S. military, admittedly, like all militaries, struggles with,” he said. “It is no secret that not all Americans act honorably on the battlefield. But these rules are embedded in the troops.”

Military veterans and legal experts say Hegseth’s rhetoric could send a confusing message to soldiers about what rules they should follow and whether they should report those who violate the force’s code of conduct

“You have to take a hard line against this kind of behavior in the name of the righteousness of the cause and combat effectiveness,” Dempsey said.

Solis, the Marine veteran and former military judge attorney, said Hegseth’s rhetoric could cause service members to question whether their leaders will uphold the military’s code.

“There have to be rules that are followed or at least in place to punish those who violate them,” Solis said. “If we do not respect the laws of armed conflict, we become what we are fighting against. We become what we fight against. We don’t get better than our enemies.”