As mentioned in Dr. Robert Lyman’s account yesterday, the British government wants to turn back the hands of time to change the rules of engagement under which British Army troops and police conducted themselves during “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland. It may be an exciting prospect for law firms, activists, and other anti-military groups, but it would set a terrible precedent for British use of military force from this moment onwards. At The Critic, Alexander Gray explains why this is a dangerous and stupid idea that should be dropped forever:
“British Army working during the Field Training Exercise” by U.S. Army Europe is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0 
.
The debate about the hounding of veterans through the courts has long been presented in terms of fairness. This is indeed one side of the story. No decent country should tolerate servicemen being dragged through repeated investigations decades after the events in question, often without new evidence and after previous inquiries have already reached their conclusions.
But focusing only on veterans misses an even more urgent point: this has become a national security threat.
Over the past two decades, the legal framework governing military operations has changed. Courts have increasingly applied standards developed for peacetime to scrutinise wartime situations of uncertainty and danger which often demand split-second judgement. Human rights law, designed principally to regulate relations between the state and individuals, has increasingly been applied to military operations, including to situations already governed by the Law of Armed Conflict.
This is having consequences on the battlefield. Personnel who believe that a lawful decision taken in combat may be reconstructed years later in a civilian courtroom are now incentivised to be more cautious, more process-driven and less willing to exercise initiative. That hesitation can slow decisions in situations where delay may place lives and the success of an operation at risk. The prospect of repeated investigations and prolonged legal uncertainty is also damaging morale and contributing to experienced personnel leaving the service, depriving the Armed Forces of skills and judgement that are difficult to replace.
This is why the Prosperity Institute has published the Military Operations Bill, presented to Parliament this week by Sir David Davis MP. It reasserts the principle that combat operations should be judged primarily by the Law of Armed Conflict. Courts have an important role in punishing wrongdoing, but they should not become alternative command structures reviewing military judgement from the safety of hindsight.
Update, 19 September: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Have a look around at some of my other posts you may find of interest. I send out a daily summary of posts here through my Substack – https://substack.com/@nicholasrusson that you can subscribe to if you’d like to be informed of new posts in the future.
If I thought the UK would ever fight for civilization or liberty again, I would be worried.
Sadly, the mullahs who will soon rule will have no rules of engagement whatsoever.
Comment by Pat McCracken — September 18, 2026 @ 21:38
The British Army can still fight … but smaller battles than it used to handle. This move may end that limited capability. What junior officer is going to risk taking the initiative in a chancy situation when he knows that his every move will be second-guessed out the wazoo by people who not only have never been in a combat situation, but who also hate him and his organization? This isn’t a new thing … Field Marshal Bill Slim knew it as a young subaltern in India (“Aid to the Civil”, Unofficial History, 1959):
Comment by Nicholas — September 18, 2026 @ 22:50
[…] OBVIOUSLY: Worrying about post-combat lawfare will crush initiative and morale. […]
Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » OBVIOUSLY: Worrying about post-combat lawfare will crush initiative and morale. — September 19, 2026 @ 02:29
This may be a stretch for some, but this is a prime example of why flock cameras and such wide surveillance are so bad. You live you life by a set of rules and then sometime in the future those rules change. The powers that be decide that you must be prosecuted based on the new rules. This is a habit of the left:
1) Did your company ever directly or indirectly benefit from the slave trade?
2) Have you ever in your life touched someone in an inappropriatly sexual manner?
3) Have you ever in your as a white person ever uttered the n-word?
It is like you drove down a street at 40 mph which had a speed limit of 35 mph. Not enough to get you a traffic citation in most areas in the US. But then the limit is dropped to 25 and you are retroactively cited.
Comment by Del Varner — September 19, 2026 @ 08:11