Follow us on social

Victims of US military violence are getting stiffed

Victims of US military violence are getting stiffed

Sen. Warren wants to know when civilians claim abuses and how much they are compensated, if at all

Reporting | Washington Politics

This year’s defense policy bill is a bit of a mixed bag for critics of American military adventurism. The compromise version of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — which passed the House and Senate this week — added more than $40 billion to the Biden administration’s funding request, resulting in an eye-popping $886 billion top-line.

The final bill left out a bipartisan, Senate-passed amendment to expand compensation for people affected by U.S. nuclear testing, which caused a range of cancers and radiation-related diseases among Americans living downwind of explosive tests, as RS reported on last week.

But one measure could make a big difference for activists hoping to hold the Department of Defense accountable for killing civilians in far-off war zones. The amendment, first introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), would force the Pentagon to tell Congress why it denied any requests for compensation from civilians harmed or killed by American troops abroad.

“When U.S.-provided weapons or military action results in civilian harm, the Department of Defense has an obligation to investigate what happened and make amends to families who lost their loved ones,” Warren told RS. “I’m concerned the Department of Defense is not fully meeting these obligations, so I’m changing the law to provide transparency and accountability.”

A 2020 law set up a $3 million annual fund for payments to victims, but the process for actually securing compensation has been shrouded in mystery. As Warren noted in a 2022 letter, the Pentagon only made one payment in all of 2021 “despite the large number of cases that DoD has confirmed as credible,” not to mention the cases of civilian harm identified by journalists and researchers but denied by the military.

When the U.S. has made payouts, they’ve only gone to people in Iraq or Afghanistan despite credible reports of civilian harm from U.S. strikes in Syria, Somalia, and other War on Terror hotspots. The payments are considered “ex gratia,” meaning that they are not mandatory and can be given at the discretion of military officers on the ground.

Even high-profile cases often fall through the cracks. Take the infamous 2021 strike in Kabul that killed 10 Afghan civilians, most of whom were children, despite initial reports that the attack had targeted ISIS fighters.

In an uncommon move, DoD apologized for the strike and “made a public commitment to condolence payments and pledged to help survivors relocate,” according to Alice Speri of the Intercept. The family did get to relocate to the U.S., but as of this May, they have still not received the compensation they were promised. In fact, a volunteer resorted to a GoFundMe fundraiser to help the survivors make ends meet. When Speri asked the Pentagon to explain what had gone wrong, officials declined to comment, “citing the family’s privacy.”

In another case, the U.S. badly wounded a man in a 2018 strike on a car in Yemen, leaving him permanently disabled and killing four other passengers. Despite evidence that none of the victims were military targets — and a letter from multiple members of Congress calling for an investigation into the incident — the Pentagon has never even looked into the attack.

The new measure “helps ensure that the ex gratia payments are being made as they should and that people who have been harmed in U.S. military operations are able to receive the amends payments they deserve,” said John Ramming Chappell of the Center for Civilians in Conflict.

Another Warren-backed amendment that made it into the final NDAA could also have a positive impact on civilians abroad, according to Chappell. The measure will require the Pentagon to brief Congress on its implementation of a series of recommendations from a 2022 Government Accountability Office report on issues with “end-use monitoring” (EUM) of U.S. weapons.

The report tells a stark story. According to the GAO, Guatemalan officials had used American jeeps multiple times between 2018 and 2021 to intimidate international NGOs and even U.S. embassy staff. Remarkably, neither the State Department nor the Pentagon had “policies governing how to record allegations of misuse in their internal tracking documents,” leaving U.S. officials unaware of Guatemala’s systematic misuse of American military equipment.

The amendment will force DoD to brief Congress on how it has implemented the report’s recommendations, which include creating a tracking system for allegations of misuse. If implemented, these suggestions would be an important step for improving EUM efforts, which currently “don't actually monitor how U.S. weapons and equipment are used,” Chappell told RS.

“Efforts to create processes to track and respond to the misuse of U.S.-origin weapons and equipment are absolutely vital to ensure accountability for misuse,” he said.

While the term “misuse” gives officials significant room for interpretation, the recommended changes to EUM would likely force the U.S. to examine whether Israel has violated the terms of U.S. arms sales in its bombing of Gaza, which even President Biden has at times called “indiscriminate.”

Officials would also likely have to report on whether U.S. rifles went to Israeli settlers in the West Bank, as Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir promised in October.

The U.S. already has much of the information necessary to open such inquiries, according to Politico, which reported yesterday that State Department officials have asked government lawyers to determine whether the U.S. faces “potential international law exposure as a result of approving” arms sales to Israel despite growing evidence of misuse.


Rich Koele/ Shutterstock

Reporting | Washington Politics
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.