The Trump administration has expanded the autonomy of military commanders to authorize air strikes without prior approval from the White House or the Pentagon, raising concerns about civilian control and risks to civilians.
The Trump administration recently changed US military policy by giving commanders on the ground greater freedom to carry out air strikes without requiring prior approval from the White House or the Pentagon. This decision aims to make military operations more responsive and less bureaucratic. However, it raises concerns about the reduction of civilian control over the military and the increased risks to civilian populations during these operations. Historical precedents show that the absence of strict supervision can lead to human rights violations and significant civilian casualties. It is therefore essential to assess the potential consequences of this relaxation of the rules on US air strikes.
Increased autonomy for military commanders: enhanced operational efficiency?
The Trump administration recently granted military commanders greater latitude to conduct air strikes without requiring prior approval from the White House or the Pentagon. This measure aims to reduce bureaucracy and speed up decision-making in the field, thus enabling a faster response to immediate threats. In theory, this increased operational autonomy could improve the effectiveness of military missions, by offering commanders the flexibility to adapt their strategies in real time.
However, this delegation of power is not without risk. The lack of direct supervision could lead to hasty or ill-informed decisions, increasing the potential for tragic errors. For example, during the war in Afghanistan, air strikes resulted in significant civilian casualties. According to Human Rights Watch, civilian casualties from strike errors tripled between 2006 and 2007, from 116 to 321. These incidents not only cost innocent lives, but also fueled local resentment, further complicating military operations and stabilization efforts.
In addition, studies have shown that air strikes without adequate supervision can lead to human rights violations. For example, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq exposed serious abuses by US military personnel, highlighting the dangers of excessive autonomy without proper oversight. These events underscore the importance of balancing operational autonomy with oversight to ensure that military actions meet ethical and legal standards.
Increased risks for civilian populations: the spectre of collateral damage
The relaxation of rules governing air strikes raises major concerns about the protection of civilian populations. Without rigorous supervision, the risk of collateral damage increases, which can result in significant loss of life and material destruction. Historical precedents illustrate the tragic consequences of such policies.
For example, during the Vietnam War, the My Lai massacre in 1968 saw American soldiers kill hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians. This incident, initially concealed, was eventually revealed, causing international outrage and highlighting the dangers of military autonomy without adequate control. Similarly, during the Iraq War, air strikes in Fallujah in 2004 resulted in the deaths of many civilians and an alarming increase in birth defects in newborns, probably due to the use of depleted uranium munitions.
These examples show that without proper oversight, military operations can cause unnecessary suffering to civilian populations, damage the international reputation of the armed forces and compromise long-term strategic objectives. It is therefore essential that any increase in military autonomy be accompanied by robust mechanisms to protect civilians and ensure accountability for actions taken.
The implications for civilian control of the military: a delicate balance
One of the cornerstones of modern democracies is civilian control over the armed forces. This structure ensures that military decisions are aligned with the values and interests of civil society, thus avoiding authoritarian abuses. The relaxation of the rules governing air strikes, by granting greater autonomy to military commanders, could potentially erode this fundamental principle.
Historically, cases where the army has operated with excessive autonomy have led to abuses of power. For example, the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004 exposed serious abuses committed by US military personnel against Iraqi detainees, highlighting the dangers of a lack of civilian oversight. Similarly, Task Force 373 operations in Afghanistan were marked by extrajudicial killings and human rights violations, illustrating the risks of military autonomy without adequate oversight.
It is therefore crucial to maintain a balance where the army has the flexibility to respond to threats in real time, while being subject to strict civilian oversight to ensure that its actions reflect democratic values and respect human rights. This delicate balance is essential to preserve the legitimacy and effectiveness of the armed forces in their missions.
The precedent of air strikes in Syria: lessons to be learned
The relaxation of the rules governing air strikes in the United States must be analyzed in the light of recent precedents, notably the strikes in Syria against armed groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. The attack on Hurras al-Din, a jihadist group operating in northwestern Syria, has been confirmed, although it is not clear whether it had been approved by the White House or the Pentagon. This situation raises questions about the lack of transparency in decision-making and the lack of institutional control over these interventions.
The intensification of air strikes in Syria has had major humanitarian consequences. According to a report by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), American bombings caused more than 1,600 civilian casualties between 2014 and 2019, the majority of whom were women and children. In 2017, a strike on Raqqa, considered the de facto capital of the Islamic State, resulted in the deaths of at least 150 civilians in a single day. These losses illustrate the potential excesses of a more flexible policy of military engagement, where decision-making is delegated directly to operational commanders.
The lack of transparency regarding the criteria for engagement also increases the legal and political risk. The Geneva Convention requires States to minimize collateral damage and to ensure that attacks are proportionate to the military objectives sought. However, a relaxation of validation procedures increases the likelihood of strikes on erroneous targets and weakens the diplomatic position of the United States vis-à-vis its allies, particularly in organizations such as NATO or the UN.
Consequently, the increased autonomy of commanders for air strikes must be accompanied by independent oversight mechanisms, ensuring that these decisions remain consistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. Without these safeguards, there is a risk of increasing strategic errors and compromising the credibility of US military interventions in the long term.
The place of drones in the evolution of air strikes
The increase in the autonomy of military commanders with regard to air strikes coincides with a major technological development: the rise of combat drones. These remotely operated aircraft have become one of the most widely used tools in US military interventions, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa.
Since 2010, armed drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper and the Predator have carried out more than 14,000 strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Somalia. Drone technology enables real-time surveillance and a rapid strike capability, justifying the relaxation of rules of engagement to respond immediately to identified threats. However, this ease of use raises ethical and strategic issues.
Firstly, the intensive use of drones reduces the perception of military risk, since operations can be conducted without directly engaging troops on the ground. This reality encourages an increased militarization of conflicts, since strike decisions become less politically costly. Furthermore, several studies indicate that drone strikes have a high rate of civilian casualties. A report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveals that between 2004 and 2019, US drone attacks in Pakistan killed between 424 and 969 civilians, including 172 children.
Secondly, the delegation of drone use to field commanders, without strict political oversight, weakens institutional accountability. Unlike conventional bombing, where the chain of command is more formal, drone strikes can be self-referential, based solely on intelligence gathered by electronic means. This raises the issue of discretion in the choice of targets, increasing the risk of attacks on poorly identified individuals or in sensitive areas.
The rise of drones as part of a more flexible military policy therefore requires a strengthening of control mechanisms. The lack of institutional validation and debate on their use raises the question of their long-term impact on the perception of American interventions around the world and on respect for international law.
A worrying precedent for future administrations?
The increased authorization granted to military commanders for airstrikes sets a precedent that could influence future US administrations. By giving the military more power in operational decision-making, the Trump administration is permanently altering the balance between civilian and military power.
One of the major consequences of this development is the gradual loss of presidential oversight over military operations, which could democratize the use of airstrikes without parliamentary debate. Traditionally, the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973 requires the US president to justify any prolonged military intervention before Congress. However, by allowing the military to carry out strikes without prior consultation, this law is being circumvented de facto, reducing the legislature’s ability to oversee the actions of the executive in matters of war.
On the other hand, subsequent administrations, whether Republican or Democrat, could take over and expand this operational latitude, creating an institutional norm where war becomes a mere technical routine rather than a thoughtful policy decision. A precedent occurred in 2011, when the Obama administration intensified drone strikes, making it more difficult to return to a more cautious policy under subsequent administrations.
Finally, this relaxation of the use of air strikes increases diplomatic tensions with foreign partners. Several European countries, including France and Germany, have criticized the use of drone strikes outside traditional battlefields, considering them extrajudicial executions in violation of international law. These diplomatic disputes risk weakening military alliances and complicating coordination with organizations such as NATO.
War Wings Daily is an independant magazine.