Not sure the hypothetical rings true for me. Considering how many absurdly qualified (Austin) or literal genius (Rumsfeld, McNamara) SecDefs we’ve had, who have actually sucked really bad at the job generally, or in the face of adversity, I don’t feel any worse off with Hegseth than careerist officers or pie-in-the-sky geniuses. I’m not saying he’s a good pick (I’d like to see him get a crack at it anyway), but this is a position that is notorious for chewing up and spitting out eminently qualified people who might be great in other cabinet spots.
In the face of nuclear war, a random Army captain might actually do better than a snobby, crusty qualified brown noser. We simply don’t know and I think it’s much harder to predict than a lot of people might imagine it to be.
Good points. I wish Trump had put Hegseth up for secretary of the Army or VA secretary and dug a little deeper for the top job. But you’re right it chews people up, McNamara looked great on paper but failed his nation as bad as any appointee ever did, and success in the job is almost impossible.
I appreciate your essay, and respectful comment, and I certainly think it’s fair to ask the question you raised. And Hegseth isn’t a shoe-in by any means. My broader feeling is that we simply don’t produce great SecDef candidates, we don’t have a system for replacing them easily if they do suck, and we don’t really even acknowledge either issue in an attempt to have dynamic and flexible military leadership. The O-6+ officer corps is totally gutless, and the smartest military policy wonks are usually extremely uncharismatic or impractical in their ideas. Go figure
The author accuses Mr. Hegseth of being too immature for the position he’s nominated for. He does so by repeating debunked allegations against him, but in such a way that indicates these comments are “oh by the way.” I don’t buy the author’s hypothesis at all. The entire tone seems to be an attempt by the author to indicate his superiority over the judgement of President Trump. Mr. Hegseth is truly a threat to the imbedded bureaucracy as well as the military industrial complex. If the author’s words were truly written the way he wanted to write, without the camouflage this article was written in, I believe you’d find it’s written from a position many Americans would not agree with.
Some conveniently omitted facts: Hegseth was awarded 3 Commendation Medals (2 from the Army and one from Special Forces). He's written 4 books, all focused on questions of education and training for the military. Some lightweight.
With the strong emphasis on diversity by the current crop of imbeciles in the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth is exactly what's needed. The quality and formation of the soldiers is far more important than the technology or the plans, something emphasized by the Prussian General Staff since the time of Frederick the Great.
The litany of failed military procurements, from the Navy's LCS and the Zumwalt destroyer, the Army's Future Combat System and the Air Force's KC-46 tanker will take more than one Secretary of Defense to fix but Hegseth is a great start here.
The military today is as inbred as some of the best dog breeds. I know from personal experience working in the civilian sector of this industry, writing contract proposals, that waste and graft are rampant. Trump will set the agenda and the pace, we only need Hegseth to be his eyes and ears. The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about is in full view and needs to be dismantled. Hegseth, even with his gay wardrobe, might just be the man for the job. Trump thinks so - that's good enough for me.
Appreciate your thoughts on the importance of the SECDEF position. Mqwerty has a point that your scenario is a challenge for any and all SECDEFs we had in recent years. You covered what you think are Hegseth’s weaknesses, but you missed a critical strength … which is his awareness that our military has been gutted by the imposition of woke ideology and corrupted (used for partisan political purposes) along with other agencies in the past several Administrations. There are enduring principles at stake (truth, integrity, mission focus) that Mr. Hegseth is aware of, while other recent SECDEFs seem blithely unaware.
I’m reminded of past leaders who arose out from relative obscurity (Eisenhower) and grew in office.
To sum, your attack is on a minor matter (gravitas), while ignoring an existential matter (destructive ideology).
Not sure the hypothetical rings true for me. Considering how many absurdly qualified (Austin) or literal genius (Rumsfeld, McNamara) SecDefs we’ve had, who have actually sucked really bad at the job generally, or in the face of adversity, I don’t feel any worse off with Hegseth than careerist officers or pie-in-the-sky geniuses. I’m not saying he’s a good pick (I’d like to see him get a crack at it anyway), but this is a position that is notorious for chewing up and spitting out eminently qualified people who might be great in other cabinet spots.
In the face of nuclear war, a random Army captain might actually do better than a snobby, crusty qualified brown noser. We simply don’t know and I think it’s much harder to predict than a lot of people might imagine it to be.
Good points. I wish Trump had put Hegseth up for secretary of the Army or VA secretary and dug a little deeper for the top job. But you’re right it chews people up, McNamara looked great on paper but failed his nation as bad as any appointee ever did, and success in the job is almost impossible.
I appreciate your essay, and respectful comment, and I certainly think it’s fair to ask the question you raised. And Hegseth isn’t a shoe-in by any means. My broader feeling is that we simply don’t produce great SecDef candidates, we don’t have a system for replacing them easily if they do suck, and we don’t really even acknowledge either issue in an attempt to have dynamic and flexible military leadership. The O-6+ officer corps is totally gutless, and the smartest military policy wonks are usually extremely uncharismatic or impractical in their ideas. Go figure
The author accuses Mr. Hegseth of being too immature for the position he’s nominated for. He does so by repeating debunked allegations against him, but in such a way that indicates these comments are “oh by the way.” I don’t buy the author’s hypothesis at all. The entire tone seems to be an attempt by the author to indicate his superiority over the judgement of President Trump. Mr. Hegseth is truly a threat to the imbedded bureaucracy as well as the military industrial complex. If the author’s words were truly written the way he wanted to write, without the camouflage this article was written in, I believe you’d find it’s written from a position many Americans would not agree with.
Some conveniently omitted facts: Hegseth was awarded 3 Commendation Medals (2 from the Army and one from Special Forces). He's written 4 books, all focused on questions of education and training for the military. Some lightweight.
With the strong emphasis on diversity by the current crop of imbeciles in the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth is exactly what's needed. The quality and formation of the soldiers is far more important than the technology or the plans, something emphasized by the Prussian General Staff since the time of Frederick the Great.
The litany of failed military procurements, from the Navy's LCS and the Zumwalt destroyer, the Army's Future Combat System and the Air Force's KC-46 tanker will take more than one Secretary of Defense to fix but Hegseth is a great start here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Hegseth
The military today is as inbred as some of the best dog breeds. I know from personal experience working in the civilian sector of this industry, writing contract proposals, that waste and graft are rampant. Trump will set the agenda and the pace, we only need Hegseth to be his eyes and ears. The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about is in full view and needs to be dismantled. Hegseth, even with his gay wardrobe, might just be the man for the job. Trump thinks so - that's good enough for me.
Christian,
Appreciate your thoughts on the importance of the SECDEF position. Mqwerty has a point that your scenario is a challenge for any and all SECDEFs we had in recent years. You covered what you think are Hegseth’s weaknesses, but you missed a critical strength … which is his awareness that our military has been gutted by the imposition of woke ideology and corrupted (used for partisan political purposes) along with other agencies in the past several Administrations. There are enduring principles at stake (truth, integrity, mission focus) that Mr. Hegseth is aware of, while other recent SECDEFs seem blithely unaware.
I’m reminded of past leaders who arose out from relative obscurity (Eisenhower) and grew in office.
To sum, your attack is on a minor matter (gravitas), while ignoring an existential matter (destructive ideology).
Steve