It is hard to tell what President-elect Donald Trump is better at: Making money or driving leftists mad.
Since winning the election, he has announced a series of nominees for key positions in his cabinet. With each announcement, the president-elect sent Democrats and their close friends and allies in the establishment media into a tizzy to the point that one wonders how they will survive four more years.
But of particular interest is his recent choice to nominate Fox News host Pete Hegseth as his Defense Secretary. After hearing the announcement, Democrats pounced, arguing against the notion that a television news commentator could run the U.S. Armed Forces.
Hegseth has no experience in high-level military leadership or strategy. Russia and China must be happy today. https://t.co/hq8TrAsaEs
— Dorian Hunter Davis PhD (@DorianDavis) November 13, 2024
For the record, Hegseth was a Captain. He was in charge of, at most, 200/300 troops. In the National Guard. He then became a news reporter. None of this qualifies him to be in charge of millions of servicemen and the most powerful army on the planet.
— Moderate in Hell (@ModerateinHell) November 13, 2024
A Fox & Friends weekend co-host is not qualified to be the Secretary of Defense.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) November 13, 2024
I lead the Senate military personnel panel. All three of my brothers served in uniform. I respect every one of our servicemembers.
Donald Trump’s pick will make us less safe and must be rejected. https://t.co/6ADUJSm8x6
As you can see, the main point of contention is that Hegseth apparently does not have experience as a general – and he’s a Fox News host. Yet, the lefties melting down over this are conveniently omitting some important information about Hegseth’s career, which is marked by active service, leadership roles, and commendations.
After graduating from Princeton University in 2003, he was commissioned as an infantry officer in the Army National Guard. He was later deployed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he served as an infantry platoon leader with the Minnesota Army National Guard, where he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal.
Hegseth also served in the Iraq war, serving as an infantry platoon leader and civil-military operations officer in Baghdad. He led combat operations and coordinated civil-military initiatives. He received the Bronze Star Medal and the Combat Infantryman Badge for his service in the region.
He was deployed to Afghanistan in 2012 with the Minnesota National Guard. He served as a senior counterinsurgency instructor at the Counterinsurgency Training Center in Kabul, where he trained Afghan forces.
Hegseth has also been a vocal advocate for veterans, having served as the executive director of Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America.
But, he’s a Fox News host, so none of this matters, right?
Maybe it would make sense to examine the real reason why the supposedly antiwar left would take issue with the possibility of having Hegseth as Defense Secretary. He has expressed skepticism about U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s war against Russia, which directly contradicts the views of Democrats who seem to want that military conflict to go on forever.
During an appearance on a podcast, Hegseth said he fears that American involvement in the war could serve to escalate the situation. “I don’t want American intervention driving deep into Europe and making him [Putin] feel like he’s so much on his heels that he does have to — because early on, he was talking about nukes,” he argued.
Hegseth also speculated that Russia would not venture further into Europe after its invasion of Ukraine. "I doubted that Putin would go much further than the border of Poland," he asserted.
He has also been a vocal critic of NATO, arguing that European allies should be more self-sufficient instead of relying on the United States, an opinion shared by President-elect Trump. “If Eastern European nations are to feel secure, it should not be solely at the expense of American resources,” he wrote in his book, “The War on Warriors.”
But what about the argument that a Defense Secretary should have experience serving as a general? After all, shouldn’t someone in this position know how to command large swaths of troops? If appointed, Hegseth would be in charge of the entire U.S. military, which is nothing to sneeze at.
The answer is that it depends on what our goals are as a nation. It is interesting that folks on the supposedly antiwar left have not considered the idea that maybe it is a good thing that Hegseth was never a general.
The possible nominee has served on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, interacting directly with the same soldiers he would be presiding over as Defense Secretary. To put it simply, he has firsthand knowledge of the horrors of war. Perhaps this is an indication that he would be more hesitant to send troops to die in unnecessary and unending wars than those who have been further removed from the realities on the ground.
This is what any American should want. Most people are fed up with U.S. involvement in foreign entanglements, which means that someone who would refrain from sending troops overseas unless it is absolutely necessary should be a welcome sign. Of course, this only applies if one is truly antiwar, which Democrats have shown they are not.
