I was a Navy commander. Trump’s approach to military deaths is concerning.

When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called for “no forgiveness, no mercy” at a Pentagon prayer service and prayed for “overwhelming violence” against those “unworthy of mercy,” the country heard more than just a wartime roar. This is a dangerous view of power that confers cruelty with strength and risks replacing the language of disciplinary force with the language of vengeance.

Even more worryingly, the country’s commander-in-chief views killing as an “honor” and shares videos that combine the actual violence of war with fictional depictions from pop culture movies and video games.

This is important because in the United States, war should be an instrument of policy, governed by law and guided by discipline, not an arena for bloodlust.

Americans have long believed that there may be times when the use of force may be necessary, but we have also maintained that force must be used for legitimate purposes, under civilian control, and subject to professional restraint.

That’s not softness. This is one of the differences that has long distinguished a professional army from a mob, a constitutional republic from the regime it opposes.

American military ethics does not teach soldiers to take pleasure in killing, nor does it regard kindness as weakness. It teaches them to perform difficult duties according to law, mission and discipline.

It requires maintaining self-control in the face of danger and adhering to standards designed to maintain effectiveness and humanity. Soldiers are trained to understand that war is not an emotional outlet. This is a big responsibility.

The military is not a place for trash talk

That’s why Trump and Hegseth’s comments should trouble Americans of all political stripes. They proposed not only a hard line against the enemy but also an unfettered philosophy of war.

There is a huge difference between a commitment to defeating an opponent and seeing the killing itself as a source of honor. There is a profound difference between words of determination and a complete denial of mercy.

One is the disciplined command language. The other is the language of revenge.

Before: Why is Hegsth under attack for defending Americans? |Opinion

Defenders of such remarks would say critics are overreacting. War, they argue, is brutal and leaders sometimes need harsh words to demonstrate strength, intimidate enemies and appease the public. No one expects the president or secretary of defense to be vulnerable in a crisis.

Fair enough, but this defense ignores the real issue.

The question is not whether leaders should sound strong. The question is whether they understand that true power requires restraint.

America needs to distinguish itself from its enemies

The United States does not prove its resolve by sounding more ruthless than its enemies. It demonstrated its resolve by showing that even if it uses force, it remains bound by law, discipline and constitutional accountability.

The comments from leaders at this level do not come out of nowhere. They shape public expectations. They influence the command climate. They signal to allies and adversaries what kind of country the United States wants to be.

History provides ample warning of the consequences of cruel words. Countries rarely openly abandon restraint in the first place. They blur it first. They begin by teaching citizens to see revenge as determination, cruelty as realism, and moral limitations as weakness.

Once this shift occurs, the line between legitimate force and sanctioned cruelty becomes easier to cross.

This is why Congress cannot continue to be a bystander.

Comment reminder: Get columns from your favorite columnists and expert analysis on trending issues delivered right to your device with the USA TODAY app. Don’t have the app? Download it for free from your app store.

Generations of Americans in uniform have performed their duties under the law, discipline, and civilian authorities. They are expected to shoulder the burden of combat without giving up professional restraint.

They follow lawful orders, operate within the rules, and recognize that in a constitutional system, military force should never be influenced solely by impulse.

Congress should be held to the same standard.

Another view: Congress should govern, not take a break at Disney World | Opinion

Congress should not remain silent while war rages

The Constitution does not give lawmakers the luxury of silence when the executive branch turns to endless conflict or engages in rhetoric that floutes restraint. Congress has the responsibility not only to authorize, oversee, and debate war, but also to defend the legal and ethical framework that guides the way America fights war.

The war powers framework exists precisely because the country does not go to war simply by the will of the president.

That means members of Congress should publicly reject rhetoric that glorifies killing and scorns mercy. They should insist that any further military action must be subordinated to the legislative branch’s constitutional duties.

They should demand clarity on objectives, legal basis and limitations. They should make it clear that toughness is not measured by how much leaders talk about destruction.

Americans who serve have performed their duty under the most arduous conditions, but always with a work ethic that demands discipline over anger, mission over vengeance. They didn’t get a license to be bloodthirsty. They are given standards.

Now Congress faces its own test.

When the president celebrates killings and the defense secretary uses unsparing language, the issue is no longer just rhetoric. The question is whether the United States still intends to behave like a constitutional republic on matters of war.

The service staff did their job. Congress must take action of its own now.

Dave Petri is a retired U.S. Navy commander who serves as communications director for National Security Leadership.

You can read the disparate opinions of USA Today columnists and other writers on X’s (formerly Twitter) opinion homepage, @usatodayopinion and our opinion newsletter.

This article originally appeared in USA TODAY: Hegseth conflates brutality with power. Very dangerous|Opinion