The military heads of the Army, Air Force, and Navy as well as the four-star combatant commanders for U.S. European Command, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command have all warned Secretary of War Pete Hegseth that continued military operations against Iran "is unsustainable and risks weakening their ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the U.S. homeland," according to an article appearing in the Washington Post.

The objections to the administration's Iran operations appeared in a highly classified document called the Secretary of Defense Orders Book, or SDOB. The contents of the document were described to the Washington Post by one or more persons on the condition of anonymity because they didn't want to go to prison.

Typically produced twice a month, the SDOB outlines the worldwide availability of U.S. warships, aircraft, personnel and weapons systems. It reflects the president’s priorities for the armed forces, as carried out by the defense secretary, and incorporates insights from the military’s top generals and admirals. Those assessments help shape the directives issued by the Pentagon. In this case, six of the most senior military officers in the U.S. military gave a "non-concur" to the administration's plan for dealing with Iran.

The geographic combatant commands overseeing U.S. operations in Europe, Asia and Latin America have had their ships, aircraft and other equipment pulled away to support the Iran conflict. This has limited their ability to conduct missions and ensure proper training, those familiar with the assessment said. The Navy, in particular, has had to stretch its capacity to keep up with wartime demands.

Army and Air Force leadership concurred with Hegseth’s desire to extend their deployed forces, but each emphasized that doing so would come with significant risk, these people said.

Overall, the tenor from the military leadership is that the ongoing Iran operation, having reached the six-month mark, has been “too much for too long,” said one person familiar with the assessment.

Objectively, the report is more than likely true. The national stockpile of critical munitions has run down. The ongoing combat operations in the Persian Gulf have stressed all services, with the Navy being hardest hit, because this is primarily a maritime operation. That the service chiefs and combatant commanders would want to bring this to a close and move on to something else is hardly unusual.

There are four other issues this story brings to the fore, but doesn't care to talk about.

Recommended
He Is Not OK: MAGA Unlikely to Forgive Jelly Roll — but Politics Isn’t the Issue Ben Sellers The Heat Is on: Iran's Elites Now Care Most About Heads Staying on Necks Ward Clark

Loyalty and Integrity

For months we've been inundated with stories from major media, fed to them by disgruntled current and former generals, that Pete Hegseth removing the deadwood and grifters from the corps of flag officers and general officers has somehow damaged the Armed Forces. Just a few days ago, the New York Times declared the U.S. military to be "rudderless" because Hegseth had fired a handful of generals and admirals (see As Pete Hegseth Honors Abbey Gate Heroes, NYT Launches Bizarre Hit Piece Targeting Him – RedState). Much of this stems from Hegseth weeding out incompetents and others who, in retrospect, seem to have been close to the media, see The Reaction to GEN Donahue's Firing Indicates Hegseth's Action Was Correct and Timely – RedState.

In this article, Hegseth's handpicked subordinates disagreed in writing with a major policy of the Trump administration. The article notes "a “non-concur,” those familiar with the assessment said — meaning they disagree with the secretary’s order to extend their forces but will execute it nevertheless." This is the way the system is supposed to work. One of the hallmarks of military service is being told to do dangerous, unpleasant, and inconvenient stuff that you'd rather not, but doing your best when you're told to do it. The fact that the men the media have accused of being Hegseth sycophants put their disagreement in writing tells you the dishonest and libelous nature of those stories.

Self-Inflicted

The objections to continuing the operations against Iran are, you might note, not rooted in the difficulty of the military operations or the lack of wisdom of the underlying policy. All of the objections are rooted in the endemic rot that has afflicted the Armed Forces and defense policymaking on Capitol Hill. We have relentlessly stripped resilience from the military by shuttering munitions factories and devastating U.S. shipbuilding capability. We are short of munitions because the factories were closed to save money. The Navy is hard pressed to do its missions because we are decommissioning ships faster than we build them. The next carrier to join the fleet will be the USS John F. Kennedy. The first steel was cut for the Kennedy in February 2011. Its keel was laid in July 2015. It will be commissioned in March 2027. For those struggling with the math, that is 15 years to produce a single aircraft carrier. The Air Force is struggling to maintain its tanker fleet, it is retiring its fleet of AWACS without a replacement in production.

This is what is called, "shooting yourself in the foot and complaining because it hurts."

The Deep State Still Exists

It takes zero imagination to understand why this story was leaked to the Washington Post. Someone in a senior staff position doesn't want to continue prosecuting the military action against Iran. They lost the internal policy battle with Hegseth and the White House. So now they are trying to sabotage the administration by creating the narrative that the military is against the operation and continuing it is reckless. I'd even go so far as to say that we can identify where, generically, the leak came from.

This is not fun and games. This is a violation of one's oath to the Constitution whether the leaker is military or civilian. Unless an order or policy is illegal, immoral, or unethical, bringing that classified, internal debate into the public sphere is something only a very small and corrupt person would do.

Treason is Real

Though I fault the Washington Post for publishing this story because it is irresponsible, you have to keep in mind this is who the Washington Post is and what it does. It is a story as old as the frog and the scorpion and being shocked when someone acts against their nature. Much of the media's reporting on the war with Iran and the Pentagon has no other purpose than ensuring President Trump's strategy fails and undermining Pete Hegseth.

RELATED:

Watch: Trump’s Sensitive Iran Military Plans Leaked – RedState
Establishment Media’s Latest Pentagon Falsehood About Munitions Outpaces the Truth – RedState
Trump Blisters Treasonous 'Washington ComPost,' Reports He's 'Extremely Happy' With Pete Hegseth – RedState

This is how one of my favorite follows on X describes it:

Here’s how a leak like this can get an American killed: 

Somewhere tonight, an adversary’s intelligence staff is reading the same story we are. 

They don’t need the whole war plan. They just need fragments: which commanders think the force is stretched, where senior leaders perceive growing risk, how long commitments may continue. They combine those fragments with what they already know and make a calculation they couldn’t make yesterday. 

Maybe they calculate wrong. Maybe they don’t. A gamble. 

But somewhere downstream of that gamble is a 22 year old American standing watch who never saw the classified document and had absolutely nothing to do with Washington politics. 

That is the pure unadulterated obscenity of operational leaks during combat operations. 

The person gambling with the secret is almost never the person whose blood is on the table. 

Never pity any journalist who puts our men and women in these situations. 

Ever.

Assistant Secretary of War for Public Affairs Sean Parnell also weighed in:

Publishing highly classified assessments from the Secretary’s orders book is a crime. 

It’s a betrayal of the force. 

And much of what they’re publishing is inaccurate. 

Of course, we demand candid military advice. Non-concurs are standard. The Secretary sees them constantly. That’s how you run a real military. 

We are in great shape around the world. 

This story isn’t about readiness. 

It’s TDS and PDS — they hate President Trump and Secretary Hegseth more than they love America.

What the Washington Post delivered to our enemies, everywhere, was classified information that the U.S. military is stretched to the breaking point and its leadership doesn't believe it can handle the missions on its plate. True or false, it doesn't matter. What is the message to China? Closer in, what is the message to Iran? Hunker down and wait. Continue combat operations because the U.S. is afraid of depleting defensive systems. The Navy wants to stop its blockade, so just take the pain and wait them out. 

There is a price extracted from Department of War's effectiveness because of this nonsense, this is something the Washington Post probably considers a feature rather than a bug, is candor. If your candid advice to the National Command Authority ends up on the front page of the Washington Post, what is your incentive to give candid advice and make yourself part of the political scrum?

In short, the story was 100 percent on-brand for the Washington Post: equal parts malicious and irresponsible. It isn't going to change the course of the administration's policy because now they can't afford to change lest they be accused of caving in over a leak. The story is going to result in needless deaths because it will harden the attitude of the ruling Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It will make America's strategic exposure greater than need be, but, then again, that is what the Washington Post is all about. It also shows that Hegseth was right about the nature of the "resistance" existing in the Pentagon and hopefully he'll make exposing the leakers a top priority.