In the debate ignited by the Washington Post’s explosive report — alleging that War Secretary Pete Hegseth issued an order to “kill everybody” aboard a suspected narco-trafficking boat, followed by a second strike to finish off two survivors — one might have expected the sharpest legal retort to come from senior uniformed lawyers, identifiable experts willing to put their names behind their accusations. Instead, what arrived was an anonymous broadside from a self-styled “Former JAGs Working Group,” declaring that if the Post’s account is true, war crimes and murder had been committed from the top down. But in stepped Dr. Brian Cox — former Army judge advocate, Cornell law professor, and one of the most meticulous Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) analysts in the field — to say, in essence: not only is the anonymous JAG letter unconvincing, it’s built on fundamental misstatements of the law, misreadings of the facts, and a dangerously destabilizing narrative about “unlawful orders” that fractures trust within the force. Cox starts with what he calls the decisive flaw: the anonymous letter never once mentions the linchpin concept of the Law of Armed Conflict  — the term “military objective.” According to Cox, the entire framework of the letter assumes the boat was “destroyed” in the initial strike and that the survivors were, therefore, shipwrecked civilians rendered hors de combat. But the Washington Post report — itself based on unnamed sources — doesn’t claim the vessel was destroyed. It was disabled. And if a disabled vessel can still be used to call reinforcements and continue its mission, Cox emphasizes, it remains a valid military objective and is fully targetable under the laws of war. The anonymous JAG letter, in his telling, builds its moral-legal outrage on a factual premise the article never actually provides. From this mischaracterization, Cox argues, the letter leaps to the fake-certain conclusion that a follow-up strike amounts to murder or a war crime. But to make that accusation, one must apply the full proportionality test of LOAC — weighing expected incidental harm to persons on a military objective against the concrete military advantage of neutralizing that objective. The letter doesn’t touch this. Doesn’t mention it. Doesn’t even gesture at the term. In Cox’s reading, it simply assumes its conclusion and works backward. Then comes what Cox calls the bizarre “no quarter” narrative; no quarter war crimes that prohibit killing enemies who are no longer a threat after they have surrendered, been captured, or are deemed unable to fight. The letter treats the allegation — itself anonymous double-hearsay — that Hegseth ordered “kill everybody” as a verbatim instruction to commit the textbook war crime of refusing quarter, Cox says. Cox notes the leap from alleged paraphrase to asserted war crime — especially when context, interpretation, and battlefield exceptions (such as persons not actually hors de combat if located on an ongoing military objective) all matter. For the anonymous JAG group, nuance evaporates; for Cox, this is legally indefensible. And then there’s the invention of what the letter dubs “pending IHL” (International Humanitarian Law) — its attempt to treat Additional Protocol II as morally binding on the United States simply because the authors wish America had ratified it. To Cox, this is not merely sloppy, but bonkers: a judge advocate cannot advise troops based on hypothetical treaty obligations. To insist otherwise, he says, is to substitute fantasy for governing doctrine. But the greatest danger, Cox warns, isn’t merely the incorrect analysis — it’s the trend the letter symbolizes: outside voices repeatedly telling U.S. troops that senior leaders issue “unlawful orders” and that they must be ready to disobey them. That message, Cox argues, corrodes discipline, foments distrust, and invites chaos in the ranks. Troops already know they must refuse patently illegal commands; what they don’t need are civilian commentators and anonymous groups eroding confidence in the chain of command with possibly legally flimsy accusations dressed up as solemn warnings, Cox says. In Cox’s telling, the anonymous JAG letter isn’t a sober legal assessment. It’s a destabilizing document built on mischaracterized facts, misapplied law, and a message that risks damaging the very institution it claims to defend. This is an entirely unconvincing – and potentially dangerous – legal analysis published by these former JAGs. For present purposes, let's ignore the fact that this "working group" is composed of completely anonymous former JAs. Instead, here I'll focus on the most glaring… https://t.co/SnYXTRiyvo pic.twitter.com/Lq0KiYT13L — Dr. Brian L. Cox (@BrianCox_RLTW) December 1, 2025