On Point with Meghna Chakrabarti Is the U.S. fighting a war without rules?
Mar 10, 2026
Daniel Maurer, a retired lieutenant colonel and law professor with combat engineer and JAG experience, and Mark Nevitt, a retired Navy commander, pilot and law professor, explain how rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict guide U.S. strikes. They discuss decision-making, timing and targeting at sea, legality in international waters, obligations toward survivors, and how policy clarity shapes battlefield limits.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Warships Are Valid Targets Even Unarmed
- Naval warships are lawful military objectives in armed conflict even if unarmed and in international waters.
- Mark Nevitt explains the IRIS DINA was a valid target struck by USS Charlotte under wartime law with proportionality considered because no civilians were nearby.
Submarine Stealth Can Limit Rescue Obligations
- There is no absolute duty for an attacking submarine to conduct rescue; operational constraints can lawfully limit direct aid.
- Nevitt notes submarines maintain stealth and communication silence, so coordinating through third-party navies can satisfy legal and moral obligations.
Political Messaging Can Undermine Precautions
- Political rhetoric like 'no stupid ROE' risks signaling fewer precautions but professional militaries still apply law and ROE in practice.
- Both guests caution Hegseth's comments could lower guard but rely on JAGs and training to uphold standards.