Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is the subject of another scurrilous article claiming, without proof or evidence, that he has lost the trust and confidence of the flag and general officer corps. A story in the Washington Times uses mostly anonymous sources to make the claim that Hegseth, "has lost the trust and respect of some top military commanders, with his public “grandstanding” widely seen as unprofessional and the personnel moves made by the former cable TV host leading to an unprecedented and dangerous exodus of talent from the Pentagon, said current senior military officers and current and former Defense Department officials." The whole article tells a different story.
The core of the critique seems to be that Hegseth is incapable of thinking above the level of an infantry major, and that keeps him from focusing on real stuff like, well, we don't know.
READ: Embittered and Irrelevant Pentagon Press Corps Launches Personal Attacks on Pete Hegseth – RedState
The September 30 meeting—
- “It was a massive waste of time. … If he ever had us, he lost us,” one current Army general told The Washington Times.
- It was “embarrassing” and theatrical to a degree that “is below our institution."
- “The theater of it all is below our institution,” the officer said. “Several of these changes are being made already by the services. And they could be made by any secretary. … They don’t have to be announced on stage in public in this grandstanding kind of way.”
Focus on the wrong things—
- “Not about f——— haircuts,” the current Army general told The Times, referring to Mr. Hegseth’s deep focus on grooming standards, a view expressed by numerous sources.
- Another source described it as “the mentality of a midgrade officer” who is deeply focused on fitness, grooming standards, and other issues that typically don’t reach the desk of the defense secretary.
- “Hegseth’s focus on fitness, weight and appearance reflects his experiences as a junior officer. These are perennial challenges at the small unit level; anyone who has commanded a small unit in the military understands where he’s coming from,” [Retired Marine Corps Col. Mark Cancian, now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies] wrote. “However, if his military experience had been at higher levels, he would have discussed strategy, threats and warfighting at the operational level. As it was, these topics were nearly absent from his remarks.”
Damaging the Pentagon—
- “Mainly what I see from him are not serious things,” a current senior officer said. “It’s, ’Why did this service member tweet this?’ Or internal politics and drama. That’s mostly what I see.”
- High-level sources said that they believe Mr. Hegseth is simultaneously doing deep damage to the military, both from a public relations standpoint and structurally behind the scenes, that may not be fully apparent until months or even years from now. They say Mr. Hegseth’s insistence that the Pentagon will embrace a color- and gender-blind meritocracy is at odds with reality inside the Defense Department, which President Trump has given the secondary title “War Department.”
- “Across the services, we are bleeding talent, talented generals and flag officers, for what appears to be the opposite of a meritocracy,” another current senior officer said. “There are people being held back from promotions, or being fired, or removed for sometimes unknown reasons, often for favoritism, or just simple relationships.”
On the other hand—
- Some analysts are quick to point out that military recruiting has surged since Mr. Hegseth took his post earlier this year. Supporters cite that as clear evidence that Mr. Hegseth’s approach is resonating with at least a subsection of young Americans and, in the process, is strengthening the armed forces. Separately, some defense industry sources stress that the Pentagon under Mr. Hegseth’s leadership is driving the development and fielding of small tactical drones in huge numbers, among other successes.
- The officer stressed that there is strong support for some of the policy changes Mr. Hegseth laid out at Quantico, including tougher fitness standards, reforms to the Pentagon inspector general’s office and changes to how complaints against officers are filed and investigated, with an understanding in the ranks that sometimes false or trumped-up accusations of racism, for example, have been used to unfairly damage careers.
This comment by a defense analyst who has never served in the military caught my eye:
“Secretary Hegseth’s proclivity to pursue the so-called culture wars at the Department of Defense is a distraction and is causing considerable anxiety among many. He overstates the supposed fixation of earlier administrations on wokeness and distorts the effect that bringing women into more combat positions has had on the U.S. military,” said Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow and director of research in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.
“However, in fairness, we have not yet seen substantial negative effects on recruiting or retention,” Mr. O’Hanlon told The Times. “Encouragingly, Hegseth has been rather stalwart in defense of Asia-Pacific alliances in particular. His springtime planning exercise requiring the military services to show how they could repurpose 8% of their budgets was potentially useful, at least as a brainstorming device.”
The criticism boils down to basically a lot of people don't like Hegseth's style. The only damage they can come up with is an exodus of other FOGOs and senior civilians who have been told to leave. In their mind, this defenestration of deadwood and resistance is a loss of talent. It isn't because those slots will be filled by people who want to do the job right. I thought the resistance to the concept of a "color- and gender-blind meritocracy" was particularly instructive and shows just how deep Marxist rot has invaded the military.
I'd also offer that the criticisms of his focus on appearance and fitness belie the fact that far too many of our senior officers don't really care about discipline, esprit, or technical competence. If the standard for lacing boots is left-over-right, I can walk into any unit and tell immediately how well the chain of command works. If standards for height, weight, and physical fitness and beards are not enforced, you can bet your bottom dollar that maintenance, logistics, personnel, and a whole bunch of other systems are broken. You can also bet that a military without attention to detail will not focus on winning wars, but on getting the most medals. In the words of a man who knew about war, General George S. Patton, Jr.: "There is only one sort of discipline—perfect discipline. Men cannot have good battle discipline and poor administrative discipline." He also said, "You cannot be disciplined in great things and undisciplined in small things.
So, to review the bidding. Recruiting is up. Commanders have more authority. Defense analysts think he's moving rapidly and in the correct direction on many critical elements. Standards are being enforced. But feelings are being hurt.
The military works off of loyalty. You don't need to like your boss, but you do need to be loyal to him and to his goals (within the bounds of legality, morality, and ethics). When I was in ROTC, we were introduced to this definition by a guy named Elbert Hubbard:
“If you work for a man, in heaven's name work for him! If he pays you wages that supply you your bread and butter, work for him - speak well of him, think well of him, stand by him and stand by the institution he represents. I think if I worked for a man I would work for him. I would not work for him a part of the time, and the rest of the time work against him. I would give an undivided service or none. If put to the pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness.”
What we're seeing is a very disloyal reaction by an undisciplined and rebellious corps of generals and admirals to a change in the way that got them to the top. It is sickening.