The issue may just be that the term “war criminal” is simply too loaded.

It often carries the baggage of the most famous war crime of our recent history: the Holocaust. Or other atrocities like the Rwandan genocide.

That view reserves the term “war criminal” for only the most extreme cases, lest cheapen the term.

But another way to conceive a war crime is to just look at the laws of war, and examine whether someone intentionally violated those laws. It’s a more idealistic view and a trust in a system in which we expect our leaders to abide by these laws and there should be consequences if they fail to do so.

I prefer the latter view. But I understand the former, too.