Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

War in his office, war everywhere - The Haze of the Warrior Ethos: The Dangers of Rolling Back Military Protections Against Abuse

"One other - Trump intervenes to boost Hegseth aide who left military for politics
A waiver granted by the president allows Ricky Buria, a top adviser to the defense secretary,
to bypass federal law and depart the Marine Corps at a rank he held only briefly."

Note below how an intent can be worded to camoflage the actual intent of so-called reform.

Lesley Wexler16 Oct 2025



Posted in: Military Law

Joining the military is an act of faith in one’s country—an act of faith
that the country will use your life well.
–Phil Klay

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently announced a “full review of the department’s definitions of so-called toxic leadership, bullying, and hazing,” decrying the “weaponiz[ation] and bastardiz[ation of] these terms undercutting commanders and N[on] C[ommissioned] O[fficer]s.” Hegseth also called for overhauling the Inspector General (IG), Equal Opportunity (EO), and Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) processes to “liberate” commanders and proposed changes to how long misconduct allegations remain in personnel files. His stated aim was to “empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retribution or second-guessing.” While he promised no “nasty” bullying or hazing, he also called for “shark attacks” in basic training—ritualized swarming of new recruits by drill sergeants—and for renewed permission to “put hands on” enlistees. One might imagine the Marine drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket.

Insert 1. "you are the lowest form of life on earth"

One wonders how much of the behavior in that movie Secretary Hegseth would disapprove.

In the scheme of recent military developments including troops deployed to American cities, attacks on boats in the Caribbean, firings .. https://verdict.justia.com/2025/03/04/lets-kill-all-the-lawyers-the-friday-night-massacre-of-judge-advocates-general .. of top-level military brass including TJAGs and the ensuing sidelining .. https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/15/politics/pentagon-lawyers-sidelined-jags .. of military attorneys, and so on, hazing might seem like a relatively small matter on which to focus. But this review ought to be understood as part and parcel of the larger project to recast the “warrior ethos” as rooted in physical toughness, conformity to (in my opinion unnecessarily) exclusionary norms, and unquestioning obedience. The review of hazing, bullying, and toxic leadership seems likely to reject or at least de-emphasize ethical and legal restraint and humane leadership.

Insert 2.

It reinforces stereotypes of brutal leadership like that of Colonel Jessup in A Few Good Men, rather than the importance of restraint needed when dealing with civilians abroad and now at home.

[Insert: How likely is Mark Kelly to face consequences because of his call to disobey "illegal orders"
from the Trump administration?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176993227]

This matters. Hazing is an endemic problem for militaries. One can point to Russia and its extreme abuse of new conscripts in which they “live under the constant threat of violence for failing to comply with limitless orders and demands of [those who have been serving longer]” with extreme physical punishments meted out often collectively. It is no surprise that a military that allows such treatment of its own systematically devalues and dehumanizes the lives of civilians as well. But hazing also affects the forces of Western democracies. To take another extreme example, in 2020, superiors in the Australian Defence force initiated .. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54996581 .. their junior soldiers by directing them to murder Afghani civilians and prisoners. An investigation revealed 39 murders as part of this “blooding” ritual. I hope Secretary Hegseth’s review would not sanction such activities. But even significantly less than the worst hazing can be quite damaging. Other examples that the U.S. military has prohibited based on past problematic practices include blood-pinning (pounding new insignia into the body), branding, tattooing, greasing, forced or withheld drinking or eating, beatings, whippings, physical assault, and the like. If severe enough, screaming and verbal harassment can currently rise to the level of hazing.

While the concerns about the line between illegitimate hazing and bullying and training methods, rituals, and practices helpful to develop an esprit de corps has long bedeviled the U.S. military, the reemergence of this debate at the same time as efforts to expand acceptable deployments at home and use of force abroad make this issue particularly pressing. If implemented with the same lack of care and preordained outcome as the transgender ban .. https://verdict.justia.com/2025/04/07/the-transgender-military-ban-part-i-district-court-rejection-of-deference-and-secretary-of-defense-hegseths-rejection-of-judge-reyes , the initiative risks eroding discipline, encouraging cruelty, and weakening the safeguards that protect both service members and the civilians under their authority. This post focuses on the hazing component by providing a brief history of reforms, expressing my concern about leaving Article 93 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as the main protection against abuses, and offering some suggestions for how a careful review might account for the military’s needs for physical and mental toughness while guarding against physical and mental abuses.

I. A Very Brief History of Anti-Hazing Reform

The U.S. military’s struggle with hazing is long-standing. Hazing issues may have accompanied even the revolutionary forces. Recurring violent initiation rituals with cadets inspired Congress to first criminalize hazing back in 1874. West Point adopted its own anti-hazing policy in 1910 after repeated scandals exposed the brutality of the plebe system. During the 1950s, Congress passed additional anti-hazing provisions, embedding prohibitions in 10 U.S.C. §§ 6964, 4352, and 9352, for the various service academies. Despite legislative and internal regulation, the military’s enforcement of anti-hazing provisions was sporadic, and the climate was often receptive or even encouraging of such behavior. Additional waves of hazing scandals occurred as African American men and women were integrated into service academies and various expanded roles in the military itself. Private Danny Chen’s 2011 suicide, precipitated by relentless racial harassment, forced all the services to revise hazing definitions and the Army to adopt its first explicit bullying policy. The Department of Defense adopted Directive 1304.33 (2000) and Instruction 1020.03 (2020), both of which clarified that hazing and bullying include physical and psychological abuse, with or without ritual elements, when done “without a proper military purpose.” These directives not only provided definitions, but also mean that service members violating them can be prosecuted under Article 92 for failure to follow a lawful general order or regulation.

Thus, over time, a predictable cycle unfolds: scandal, concern, reform by Congress, the relevant service, or both, and then an eventual regression from the high point of enforcement and new norm internalization. Hegseth’s speech is a call for regression, though he might say he does not advocate a return to the worst abuses, but merely to recalibrate reforms that have gone too far. In this section, I explain why I think that is not the case.

II. Why Article 93 Alone Is Not Enough

Even if this review rolled back all of the directives and instructions on hazing, Article 93 on maltreatment as well as other articles criminalizing battery and assault would remain. But while Article 93 is important, I believe it is not enough. When Congress enacted the Uniform Code of Military Justice in the 1950s, it included article 93, which states, “Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Congress did not specifically direct Article 93 at hazing, it can and has been used to prosecute abuses of detainees such as those on the War on Terror and could be used for mistreatment of civilians in an occupation, or anyone else subject to the orders of a serviceperson. While I appreciate the broad scope, the lack of specific focus on hazing and the failure to further define cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment help explain why additional reforms were needed in the 2000s. The training and guidance provided for in hazing specific regulations and orders help bridge that gap, giving everyone—both those in power and those subject to it—a better understanding of what ought not be tolerated.

Moreover, Article 93 probably sets a higher threshold than the directives and instructions on hazing and bullying. I expect Secretary Hegseth would consider that higher threshold as a feature rather than a bug as he finds the current climate to be too restrictive and only wants to prohibit “nasty” hazing or bullying. But remember Article 93 is often narrowly construed. It asks whether the defendant’s behavior satisfies an objective ‘abuse of authority’ test and whether it would reasonably cause physical or mental suffering. United States v. Carson, 57 M.J. 410 (C.A.A.F. 2002) My sense is that at least some, and perhaps much of the verbal degradation, forced physical exertion under humiliating conditions, and psychological manipulation that may not meet the threshold for prosecution under Article 93 might still be punishable under Article 92 based on more explicit anti-hazing or anti-bullying directives. If those directives were repealed or diluted, commanders and prosecutors would lose a crucial enforcement tool. Moreover, an overhaul or elimination of those directives and other related efforts might lead panel members to view what constitutes maltreatment differently as they would be operating in a different climate of tolerance for various activities. Such concerns, of course, are magnified in a setting where the Secretary of Defense is also promising to overhaul the Inspector General (IG), Equal Opportunity (EO), and Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) processes. And lastly, this reliance on Article 93 and elimination of lawful general orders on hazing assumes that “nasty” and borderline permissible hazing is rare and when sufficiently abusive is effectively addressed through prosecutions. Yet each of the prior scandal cycles and ensuing reports suggest that not to be the case. While one or two spectacularly bad cases generated attention, the ensuing scrutiny identified significantly more unreported and uninvestigated instances or even behavior unidentified by the victim as problematic. Moreover, some of the other warning signs such as comprehensive data collection and extensive training might be rolled back as well, making it difficult to fairly assess whether a new policy is creating a more permissive climate for borderline and extreme cases.

III. Suggestions for the Review

As my co-author and I wrote previously, we have serious concerns about the quality of decision-making processes that inform new military policies in this Administration. With that in mind, I suggest three areas for sustained attention during the review process.

First, a fulsome review of studies assessing the empirical evidence as to what kind of training behavior and “self-policing” behavior best builds military identity formation, mental and physical toughness and under what conditions. For instance, RAND’s 2015 study Hazing in the U.S. Armed Forces: Recommendations for Prevention Policy and Practice found at best mixed scholarly evidence for the correlation between the severity of hazing and measures of unit cohesion or combat readiness. Relatedly, is there other behavior from trainers, leaders, and others in authority positions that generates the desired trust, competence and shared purpose without inflicting physical or emotional harm? While anecdotal evidence from war-tested veterans attributes their ability to survive in difficult conflict and detention settings is relevant, more systematic data both from the United States and other militaries should be read, assessed, and accounting for in the decision-making process. I remain open to the possibility that studies support a greater range of activities than currently permitted to count as military necessity, though that is not my current impression.

Second, the review needs to account also for the potential moral and operational costs of a greater tolerance for hazing. Studies link such behaviors to depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, and suicide. Hazing studies, including those of service members. suggest that hazing can create significant mental health issues where none existed before. While Secretary Hegseth might accept such a toll as a necessary cost of doing business, of course, the impact to those victimized ought to count in the calculus. Moreover, witnesses and even perpetrators often suffer moral injury—the psychological distress that arises when one’s actions or environment violate deeply held moral beliefs. When the message is that cruelty and humiliation get the desired results, that imparts a very dangerous lesson to impart on those who will themselves become responsible for the treatment of those reporting to them.

Relatedly, even if some benefits from hazing exist, what impact will they have on recruitment and retention? Will individuals who care about their mental health be deterred from joining or motivated to depart? I am indebted to Jill Maurer for the point that this may be especially likely when the trend for other institutions of higher education, outside the service academies, is to strengthen prohibitions on hazing. Again, Secretary Hegseth might view this as a feature and not a bug, but many such individuals might be exactly the kind of future leaders who would be attentive to the needs of their subordinates and committed to building cohesion in non-abusive ways.

Third, and I thank Dan Mauer for raising this point, the burden ought to be on the reviewers to demonstrate why any changes to existing practices are needed. Simply producing some relevant evidence justifying sharking, hands on enlistees, and other forms of currently prohibited hazing ought not be sufficient. The review needs to make a compelling affirmative case for change rather than simply producing the bare minimum of supporting evidence. Secretary Hegseth’s repeated invocation of the warrior ethos as an alternative to his vision of weak, woke service members does little to actually explain the military’s difficulties in recent conflicts rather than the likelier culprits of politics, international relations, strategic decisions, and the will of the enemy.

Lastly, if new rules are generated, they ought to provide sufficient clarity. Even if I disagree with the future drafters about where lines ought to be drawn, I hope we could all agree that clear guidance about what conflict is impermissible is important. Past cycles show the difficulty in successfully implementing unclear standards. For instance, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in the 1990s that weak and inconsistent definitions of hazing had “contributed to climates permitting abusive behavior.” RAND’s 2015 findings echoed that concern, citing confusion among commanders about what conduct was permissible. Even in the 2020s, scholars note persistent uncertainty in applying policy language to real-world scenarios. Ambiguous rules may usher in even whatever “nasty” hazing and bullying Secretary Hegseth could agree ought to remain unlawful, which would be the worst possible outcome of such a review.

Posted in: Military Law

Lesley Wexler is a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Professor Wexler writes, teaches and consults in the public international law fields, especially international humanitarian law, international disaster law, and human rights as well as in the anti-discrimination field more generally.

https://verdict.justia.com/2025/10/16/the-haze-of-the-warrior-ethos-the-dangers-of-rolling-back-military-protections-against-abuse