For many readers, the military exemptions of Deuteronomy 20:5–7 are somewhat puzzling. What army on the cusp of battle would willingly allow a portion of its fighting force to return home for the seemingly mundane reasons mentioned in 20:5–7? For many, this has led to the suspicion that there must be more to these exemptions than simply humanitarian motivations. Gerhard von Rad, for example, suggested that these exemptions were originally designed to protect the Israelites from demons that would be unleashed if an individual died in battle with their house undedicated, their vineyard unenjoyed, or their marriage unconsummated. According to Eckart Otto, these exemptions may have been formulated, in part, to protest the conscription of Judean auxiliaries for the Neo-Assyrian army. The weight of recent scholarship, however, has focused on the relationship between Deuteronomy 20:5–7 and the nearly identical futility curses of Deuteronomy 28:30. Alexander Rofé suggested that they were designed to prevent the futility curses of 28:30 from being unleashed on the Israelites. Christopher Wright and Gary Hall have argued that they were formulated, in part, to avoid the appearance that individuals who died under these circumstances were under a curse. Similarly, Eckart Otto suggested that they were formulated to prevent troops from being disheartened by the possibility that individuals who died under these circumstances were under a curse. Most recently, Laura Quick argued that these exemptions were part of a ritual act, similar to Mesopotamian anti-witchcraft rituals, designed to counteract the threat of futility curses. Against these positions, this paper argues that these exemptions were not influenced by the threat of futility curses but were motivated by a desire to foster loyalty and produce a fighting force that would not hesitate to risk their lives in non-existential military conflicts. This paper proceeds in four parts. First, it will examine the individual exemptions and the scenario envisioned in Deuteronomy 20 for when they could be implemented. Second, it will examine the exemptions mentioned in the Sumerian poem Bilgames and Huwawa (Version A: ‘The Lord of the Living One’s Mountain’), the Kirta Epic, and the Anabasis of Alexander. Though not related to Deuteronomy 20:5–7 on a literary level, these texts provide useful analogies that shed light on possible motivations for allowing military exemptions and the circumstances under which they could be offered. Third, based on a genre analysis of petitionary curses, it will show that the scenario envisioned in Deuteronomy 20:5–7 lacks the necessary elements for these exemptions to have been motivated by futility curses. Further, it will show that the anti-witchcraft rituals examined by Quick do not provide a helpful analogy for understanding the exemptions of 20:5–7. Finally, it will examine the relationship between the exemptions of 20:5–7 and the futility curses of 28:30. Despite the similarities between Deuteronomy 28:30 and EST 428–430, the futility curses of 28:30 are best understood as adaptations and intensifications of the military exemptions of 20:5–7.