Yuyun Lusiyani
Three years ago, the United States Defense Department spearheaded an ambitious international initiative aimed at bolstering the protection of non-combatants in zones of conflict, a movement forged from the harsh and bloody lessons learned during protracted military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. This groundbreaking endeavor saw the Pentagon establish a robust network with key European partners, diligently working to foster the creation of universally shared standards for mitigating civilian harm. At the time, leading civilian harm experts lauded this moment as a "unique opportunity" for American leadership to demonstrate its commitment to ethical warfare through tangible example. Today, however, these crucial efforts persist, yet conspicuously, without the United States. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s controversial decision to dismantle the Pentagon’s dedicated civilian protection mission has effectively sidelined America from a coalition it once championed, casting a shadow over its international standing and commitment to humanitarian principles.
The immediate consequence of this withdrawal became starkly apparent on Thursday, as no U.S. delegation was present in the room when the International Contact Group on Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) convened its crucial summit at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. This absence from a forum the U.S. itself co-founded sends an unmistakable message, reinforcing the perception that the nation has abandoned a mission it had actively encouraged its international partners to embrace. Current and former U.S. officials, many of whom spoke to ProPublica on condition of anonymity due to profound fears of retaliation from the current administration, universally characterized this step back as both "humiliating" and "dangerous." Their concerns are amplified by recent alarming reports indicating a significant rise in civilian casualties in Iran, following a series of strikes that reportedly impacted schools and residential areas, underscoring the grim consequences of diminished protection protocols.
The Genesis of CHMR: Learning from "Forever Wars"
The Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response mission, known by its acronym CHMR and pronounced "chimmer," was formally adopted by the Pentagon in 2022. This pivotal decision came after years of relentless bloodshed and mounting international outcry stemming from the post-9/11 "forever wars." The sheer scale of civilian suffering in conflicts like those in Iraq and Afghanistan forced a reckoning within military leadership. The framework was designed to be comprehensive, calling for the establishment of a specialized center dedicated to collecting meticulous strike data, alongside the deployment of expert advisers embedded within regional commands. Their primary role was to proactively identify and mitigate risks to non-combatants, moving beyond the historical military paradigm that often dismissed such casualties as mere "collateral damage."
The conceptual shift was significant. Advocacy groups had spent years tirelessly campaigning to reframe civilian casualties not just as a moral imperative, but also as a strategic detriment to military objectives. They argued that the deaths of innocents fueled insurgencies, eroded trust, and undermined the long-term goals of stability and security. The eventual embrace of CHMR guidelines by American defense officials provided a powerful precedent, empowering their counterparts abroad to advocate for and implement similar programs within their own national militaries. Jenny McAvoy, a former Defense Department official who played a crucial role in shaping the U.S. civilian protection program, articulated this influence clearly: "By the U.S. putting itself out there and saying, ‘We learned, we can do better,’ it gives permission and makes it OK for other governments to similarly acknowledge, ‘Yeah, we can do better too.’"
A Partnership Forged in Shared Tragedy
Not long after its internal adoption, the United States actively sought to coordinate these vital efforts internationally, forming a collaborative partnership with the Netherlands. This alliance was a natural fit, as both nations had frequently operated as partners in recent military campaigns, including the arduous fight against the Islamic State group. Crucially, both countries were also grappling with the aftermath of high-profile civilian casualty incidents that had ignited national and international scrutiny. For the United States, the cumulative harm inflicted over years in Iraq and Afghanistan had led to pledges from commanders to improve data collection and diligently learn from past deadly mistakes.
The Dutch, too, were still navigating the profound fallout from a devastating 2015 operation in Iraq. During this incident, air strikes targeting a car-bomb factory inadvertently ignited a nearby munitions depot, triggering an enormous secondary explosion that claimed the lives of at least 70 civilians and wounded hundreds more. The Dutch government’s responsibility for this tragedy was not fully revealed until 2019, sparking a national scandal and widespread accusations of a cover-up. This shared experience of acknowledging, investigating, and attempting to learn from such catastrophic errors provided a strong foundation for their joint leadership in the CHMR initiative.
In 2023, the U.S. and the Netherlands formally established the loose coalition on CHMR, bringing together a small, informal group of like-minded nations. Since its inception, this group has convened approximately half a dozen times, serving as a vital platform for participants to share best practices, exchange lessons learned, and receive crucial briefings on emerging civilian casualty trends globally. This collaborative environment was instrumental in fostering a collective commitment to evolving and strengthening civilian protection mechanisms across various national defense forces.
The Abrupt U.S. Withdrawal: A Leadership Vacuum
Despite this initial momentum and leadership, the enthusiasm from the U.S. side has demonstrably evaporated. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, known for his controversial dismissal of rules of engagement as "woke," systematically gutted the CHMR program. This drastic action, as reported by ProPublica last month, was taken over the explicit objections of the nation’s top military commanders. The operational capacity of the program was severely curtailed, with its dedicated staff plummeting from nearly 200 personnel to a mere two dozen. This decimation of resources rendered the U.S. program largely ineffectual and effectively signaled a dramatic shift in policy.
Days leading up to the recent Brussels summit, the United States was conspicuously absent from the official list of participants, and there was no indication that any representative from the Defense Department would attend. Current and former officials, anticipating this outcome, predicted either a complete no-show or, at best, the presence of a single, low-level delegate from one of the regional commands. For experts in the field, the message conveyed by this deliberate absence was unambiguous: the era of U.S. leadership on civilian protection, a role it had painstakingly built over years, had come to an abrupt and disheartening end.
Jenny McAvoy further elaborated on the continuity of the international effort despite the U.S. withdrawal: "The U.S. stopped participating in this group last year and people assumed that meant the group would die. But the group continued to exist and to meet — without the U.S. — under the renewed leadership of the U.K. and the Netherlands." This resilience among other nations highlights both the perceived importance of the mission and the void left by America’s departure.
International Partners Step Up: A New Era of Leadership
The two-day summit in Brussels opened with a broad discussion encompassing various aspects of CHMR, including its application in multinational coalitions and maritime operations. This initial session saw the participation of advocacy groups and academics, underscoring the multi-stakeholder nature of the challenge. The second day was dedicated to closed-door, more intimate discussions among senior representatives from member states, culminating in a "looking ahead" panel to chart the future course of the initiative. Past attendees of this vital forum have included a diverse array of nations, such as Austria, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Norway, each bringing unique perspectives and needs to the table concerning civilian harm mitigation.
The United Kingdom, for instance, has historically lacked a formal, overarching framework for civilian harm mitigation and response. Advocacy groups have been actively pressing the British Ministry of Defense for years to adopt policies akin to those pioneered by the United States. While the American CHMR enterprise was often regarded by humanitarian groups as nascent and imperfect, its overall framework nevertheless provided a worthy and influential standard. Mae Thompson of the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, a London-based advocacy group, noted that the Pentagon’s rollback presented an unexpected opportunity for the U.K. to potentially step into a leadership role. This sentiment has been bolstered by a recent internal report from the British defense ministry, which strongly recommends the formalization of a comprehensive program in Britain. This proposed program would include robust systems for tracking civilian harm, conducting thorough investigations, and implementing effective amends and post-harm response mechanisms.
Beyond individual nations, NATO itself possesses a civilian protection policy that predates the American model. However, according to Andrew Hyde, who studies U.S.-European relations at the Stimson Center, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank, the organization has been increasingly incorporating elements of the U.S. approach into its own doctrine. Hyde emphasizes the critical importance of these international discussions, particularly for resolving the complexities of how CHMR applies in joint operations where the United States, NATO, and various European nations may hold differing interpretations of harm mitigation. The diminished U.S. role, he argues, now places a greater onus on NATO and its other partners to enhance their coordination and leadership in this crucial area.
Broader Implications and Future Outlook
The withdrawal of the United States from this critical global effort carries significant broader implications. On one hand, it represents a retreat from a values-based leadership position that America had begun to carve out on the international stage. It risks signaling a diminished commitment to humanitarian law and ethical conduct in warfare, potentially eroding the hard-won trust of allies and leaving a vacuum that geopolitical rivals might exploit. The "dangerous" label applied by former officials resonates deeply, especially as reports of rising civilian casualties in sensitive regions like Iran paint a grim picture of what unchecked military actions can entail without robust protection protocols.
On the other hand, Hyde offers a nuanced perspective, suggesting that this shift in leadership, while initially jarring, could paradoxically lead to more enduring reforms. By compelling other nations and organizations like NATO to assume greater responsibility and ownership, the civilian protection work might become less susceptible to the shifting political whims of any single U.S. administration. "NATO has continued to push forward without U.S. support or participation, keeping up the momentum and ready for U.S. re-engagement," Hyde observed. This resilience indicates a strong international conviction in the necessity of CHMR principles, irrespective of America’s fluctuating commitment.
Ultimately, the Pentagon’s official stance, reiterating its commitment to "fulfilling its civilian harm mitigation and response responsibilities" while declining to comment on its absence from the Brussels talks, stands in stark contrast to its actions. This disconnect underscores a profound challenge for the international community. While the immediate momentum from the U.S. side has indeed evaporated, the global commitment to protecting civilians in combat remains undeterred, albeit with a new constellation of leadership emerging to champion this vital cause. The question now is not if the work will continue, but under whose banner, and at what potential cost to America’s moral authority on the global stage. The future of civilian protection in conflict zones, once propelled by U.S. leadership, now rests firmly in the hands of its allies, who appear ready to carry the torch forward.
Joko Widodo
Jia Lissa
Pevita Pearce
admin