The Pentagon's Quiet Dismantling of a Civilian Death Prevention Program: A Deep Dive into the Implications
The recent revelation that the Pentagon has quietly dismantled a legally required program to prevent and respond to civilian deaths in US military operations has sparked concern and debate. This program, designed to handle training and procedures critical in limiting civilian harm in theaters of war, has been effectively shut down, leaving a gaping hole in the US military's commitment to civilian protection. What makes this particularly fascinating is the timing and the individuals involved. As the US military faces increasing scrutiny over deadly attacks on Iran, the dismantling of this program raises a deeper question: Is the Pentagon prioritizing military might over civilian lives?
The program in question, created by Lloyd Austin under Joe Biden, was a response to years of deadly US bombing campaigns in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Airwars, a civilian harm monitor, estimated that US drone and airstrikes killed at least 22,000 civilians in the 20 years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This grim reality prompted the creation of the program, which aimed to limit civilian casualties and hold the military accountable for its actions. However, the program's dismantling has been gradual and subtle, making it difficult to pinpoint the exact moment it ceased to function.
One thing that immediately stands out is the role of Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon chief. Hegseth has come under fire for deadly attacks on Iran, including a US strike in Minab that killed at least 175 people, a majority of them children, at an all-girls school. Limiting casualties has not been a top priority under Hegseth's tenure, and his response to civilian casualties in Iran has been defensive and blame-shifting. He has claimed that no nation in history has taken more precautions than the US to avoid civilian deaths, but the inspector general's report tells a different story.
The report, published on May 13, points to an inflection point in February, when two senior officials proposed cutting or eliminating the program. One proposal went further, recommending scrapping the action plan and its underpinning departmental instruction entirely. Without waiting for a response, the military began acting as if the cuts had already been approved. Later that month, the US launched strikes on Iran, raising questions about the timing and the potential impact on civilian lives.
The inspector general's report also highlights the lack of clear offices of primary responsibility and the incomplete and inaccurate data in the program's implementation tracking tool. This suggests that the program was already struggling to meet its goals before its dismantling. The most deadly US strike on Iran since the US and Israel launched the war, on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary school in Minab, occurred around the same time as the inspector general found that CHMR's operations had ground to a halt.
The implications of this dismantling are far-reaching. The US military's commitment to civilian protection is at stake, and the potential consequences for civilian lives are profound. Madison Hunke, US program manager at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, warns that the gutting of the CHMR workforce could lead to devastating levels of civilian harm in future US operations. This raises a deeper question: Is the Pentagon prioritizing military might over civilian lives?
In my opinion, the dismantling of this program is a disturbing development. It suggests a shift in priorities away from civilian protection and towards military aggression. The timing, the individuals involved, and the potential impact on civilian lives are all cause for concern. As the US military faces increasing scrutiny over its actions, it is crucial to hold the Pentagon accountable for its commitment to civilian protection. The future of civilian lives hangs in the balance, and the Pentagon must be held to account for its actions.
