The Wisdom of SecDef Douchenozzle
claireberlinski.substack.com
The military reviews Pete Hegseth's Quantico speech
Claire—I’ve never served in the military, and I’m well aware that my views about Pete Hegseth and his Tailhook Time Machine speech at Quantico lack the authority of experience. So I asked friends who’ve served to give me their thoughts.
Our reader Robert McTague, who spent more than 24 years on active duty and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel, sent me the reply below. I asked him if I could publish it in full, and he graciously gave me his permission. I’ve lightly edited a few sentences for clarity. Any mistakes, therefore, are mine, not his.
Robert McTague
Hegseth comes across as a bit of a car salesman (or, as The Bulwark opined, like Tom Cruise’s motivational speaker character in Magnolia), but I don’t have that big of an issue with that. Other SECDEFs have had notorious image issues and reputations for arrogance. The substance of what he said in his opening mostly ranged from fine to fairly relevant.
I have no freaking idea where he thinks he’s going to get all the money to build these extra platforms he mentioned—more troops (super expensive), more munitions, more drones, more Patriots, more submarines, more B-21 bombers— we’re talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in new expenditures, at least. But if that’s the intent (and this could come from the idea of preparing for a war with China, which we definitely should be thinking about), then I’m on board with that part. On the plus side, he won’t need most of those platforms to fight against, say, the Massachusetts State Police, so maybe his mind is at least somewhat in the right place.
On ending promotions based on race and gender, that was a bit of a bugaboo the entire time I was in service. Many believed that some degree of racial profiling informed our promotions, at least for officers and senior NCOs. But I never found anyone—including among the people who actually sat on boards from two of the services—who could explain to me how this was occurring, or in what numbers.
That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I’m just skeptical about how often and to what effect. I became less concerned, over my time in service, that it was a real issue. Moreover, I remember being told in the mid-’90s that factors such as race and gender had informed promotions until then, but were being discontinued.
Did I know people, especially in the ‘90s, who caused me to wonder if maybe they were promoted due to their race? Yes. But I’d be hamstrung to prove it in a court of law. Meanwhile, I knew at least as many people who I’m 100-percent positivewere promoted because they were a general’s son. Or because they were being sheltered by a patron saint (such as a four-star) who ensured they at least made colonel (despite, say, bad things in their files and reputations).
The single biggest counter-merit thing I ever saw in the military was nepotism (some of it mind-bogglingly egregious). But I didn’t hear one mention of that in this speech. Maybe it’s because all those Civil War legacy families in the Army from the former Confederacy would scream bloody murder. (Yes, I have things in writing that confirm they’re worried the Army might “lose” these precious assets if we don’t—<sniffle, sniffle>—de-wokify.) And no, I’m not leaning into that for effect. The Old South establishment Army community has been shrieking like banshees the past few years.
Next was the fat thing. Look, there has always been some friction, some level of concern about this, the entire time I was in the Army. (One source of the problem, by the way, might be our own chow halls—not exactly repositories of healthy eating). This was true even during periods when recruiting was going very well. When I was a basic training battalion XO, we were told that only about 27 percent of America’s 18- to 25-year-olds could pass the PT test and meet the height-weight standards required to start basic training. That was 18 years ago. So I have to wonder—where are we going to find all these fit people?
But more to the point, Hegseth’s ire seems directed at senior NCOs and officers who he deems to be fat. Okay, fine. If there is a standard, sure, it ought to be applied. But I’m here to tell you that once officers get in the colonel and general range, no one really gives a shit. What we give a shit about is whether or not these people can do their fucking job.
A few examples: When we fought OIF actual, the CFLCC 1 C3 was JD Thurman (who was, by the way, from a ridiculously general-laden military family, and no one had any issue with that). Let’s just say JD was diabetic, had a pacemaker and was not svelte. I’d guess he hadn’t done a PT test in years. As he once replied to our PA, who was forever chastising him about things like eating plates full of potatoes, “Damn it, Doc, I’m here for my brain, not my body—just keep me alive.” The man was handpicked by LTG McKiernan to be the operations chief for the entire land invasion. Would Pete Hegseth go back in time and remove JD from that slot because he’s a little too pudgy? Dunno about that.
Two more examples: General Schumacher, the former JSOC and Delta Force commander, was brought back on active duty to be Chief of Staff of the Army. He was quite the widebody (and leader. And killer. And all-around badass). There was BG Harrell who commanded US SOF forces during the land invasion of Iraq. He too was notably large. Both were men who, in their younger years, were running more miles before 9:00 am than I used to in a week—and consuming 3 to 4,000 calories a day while doing it.
Later, when they were too old to be operators, things like injuries (or just insane levels of wear and tear) and age caught up with them, their metabolisms slowed down, and they predictably got heavy. There wasn’t a damn thing they could do about it. (I knew several old SF and Ranger types like this). My buddy who was in Delta with them, all the way back in the days they’d been skinny, didn’t think one bit less of them at that age because they had gotten large. It just doesn’t fucking matter.
I had an FDO who had always fought weight issues, was getting out of the Army, and notably large—and was also, hands down, the best FDO in our battalion. Would I have sat him out from deploying, two years later, to fight a ground war because of his weight? No—I’d have been fighting heaven and earth to keep him, because he was the best. But that’s just me (and, I suspect, every other battle commander in my battalion at that time). But he doesn’t want any more “fat generals.” Alrighty then. Show me one iota of evidence that this will improve the capabilities and likely future fortunes of our force in war, and I’m already onboard. I’ll wait for that, though.
Next agenda item were the beards. Apparently, the services have had a Civil War renaissance in recent years, because Pete’s tired of the beards. Soooo many beards, apparently (I checked—there aren’t. It’s just in his list of personal pet peeves).
For the uninitiated, the forbidding of beards in the US military was primarily driven by considerations regarding NBC use, the zero-sum logic being that beards can prevent a good seal on gas masks, hence, no more beards. It certainly had nothing to do with grooming or societal standards. That was the retrofitted justification, because beards had already been banned for a generation or two. So no, it’s not about appearance standards. Many contemporary NATO forces allow beards (the gas mask thing isn’t that big a deal, and it’s perfectly manageable so long as the beard isn’t on the neck).
Some classmates have already noted that “the Left” has complained that this effort targets black soldiers. I would be skeptical of that … except that yes, I believe that is entirely true. The reason I believe it is that in the Army at least, this is a long-standing, well-known issue with African-American male soldiers in service.
My personal experience, however, was that while a significant number of soldiers dealt with the issue (guaranteed you will find ample supplies of Bump Fighter in the men’s grooming aisle at every BX/PX under the sun), very few had medical profiles for shaving, and almost all of them were temporary. It just wasn’t a big deal in terms of numbers, and it never had any impact on readiness or ability to fight. Because it doesn’t.
In fact, I specifically remember when a colleague of mine, Eric Birdy (who was prominently mentioned in Michael Gordon’s Cobra II), was stationed in Haiti. His detachment went several weeks with low water resupply, so he made the command decision for his team to only shave every other day, because he concluded that shaving was wasting a significant amount of their drinking water (and, in his words, “served no other purpose anyway.”) If this sounds like it’s getting trivial, well, it is. Definitely some SECDEF-to-GOFO urgent-level stuff. Surely.
The next item was getting rid of zero-defects mentality, the well-intentioned striving for perfection that kills initiative and creates fear of failure. This got my attention. I’m currently in the middle of an 8,000-word essay on zero-defects mentality in the late ‘90s Army. Then, it was a major factor (one of about five) that led droves of captains—my peers—to get out of the Army, often without sticking around even to take company command. It was enough of a crisis that George W. Bush mentioned it on the campaign trail in 2000. So I was very interested what he had to say.
The problem as I see it is that first, I don’t exactly believe him, or all of this talk of delegation and overlooking small indiscretions, when he just forced every GOFO in the world into a room for a pep rally, and when he’s already bitched about three things, one of which is of some (but debatable) importance, and the other two of which are entirely trivial.
But far more importantly, if you think cultural issues in the military are deep-rooted, zero-defects, trust me, is in the elite tier. I simply don’t think it’s possible to get rid of it. You can only hope to contain it—assuming it’s really still that big an issue. I’m not sure how bad it is now. We finally got rid of all the military’s Boomers (trust me, this was a considerable factor in the turn-of-the-century problems our Army faced), but we’re also not in any wars now. And I hate to say it: Wars actually diminish zero-defects culture. I’ll take getting rid of Boomers as a benefit that outweighs the ravages of peacetime military life.
Colin Powell famously (and bravely, I think) related the story of when he was a junior officer in Korea and committed the unforgivable sin of losing his weapon. He was upfront in saying that in the contemporary Army (in the ‘90s, when he wrote this), losing a weapon would’ve likely ended his career. Chester Nimitz ran a ship aground in his early years, and clearly it’s a good thing we didn’t kick him to the curb for that. Nowadays, he’d be a nameless casualty of serving your nation.
And I’m just not sure how much we roll back such things and, even more, how the hell we do it. I think a Gen X-led military will improve, and already is improving, these things. But I don’t think having a SECDEF-held, 10,000-km screwdriver bearing down on fitness and grooming standards is going to help in that regard. I can pretty much guarantee it will do the opposite—even if the intent is genuine.
But probably the biggest issue I had, substantively, was with Hegseth opening the door on leader behavior. First, the idea that the modern military has castrated itself and can longer yell, enforce punishment, etc. is hogwash. There was a survey once of hundreds of members of something like 50 or 70 consecutive classes at West Point. Interestingly (and probably predictably), the vast majority of those surveyed, in every single class, was thoroughly convinced that the class after them—not years or decade, one—had it easier than they did.
I would posit this is mostly due, over time, to the retirement of small, mundane, hazing rituals and punishments. In other words, things that don’t mean shit. Like having to have your socks pulled all the way up your leg (this was an actual thing that got changed in the ‘90s).
But Pete took it further than that and specifically talked about again being able to put hands on soldiers. Full fucking stop and do it now. No. Fucking. Way. Aside from grabbing a soldier to keep them from harm or something of that ilk, there is no reason to be laying hands on soldiers. This is waving a red cape in front of abusers (they lurk everywhere), and you can be damned sure we’ll end up breeding a culture that makes A Few Good Men look sober and restrained. When I was a basic training XO, my commander and I did lots of sensing sessions with drill sergeants. A few of them would always complain they “couldn’t do anything to soldiers.” The commander (also my friend) would have none of it. “What is it, exactly, you need to doto them? Please, tell me.” Never got one substantive answer, either. Not one.
SECDEF also talked about women being in combat arms, but not being able to meet a physical standard. Quite literally, I cannot find anyone who will tell me this is actually happening. First off, the number of women in actual combat arms (I don’t mean flying an Apache, which they’ve done now for 30 years—I mean being infantry, Special Forces, etc.) is still quite low. To my understanding, those women do have to meet a physical standard, and if they don’t, they end up being the office worker, training NCO, or person in the rear—just like all the men in the unit who can’t cut it. This has been true for years and years. I honestly think this complaint (like the beards and fat generals) is a nugget of truth wrapped in 80 percent fiction.
The last things was the Rules of Engagement. Well, I went to war, and I continued to deal with actual ROE for 13 more years. Sorry, I simply never saw an ROE that I or anyone else felt really hampered mission. Oh, it made it harder. Made our planning have to be much, much tighter. I distinctly remember our lawyer bullying the lawyer one level down (MNFI and MNCI) 2 20 minutes before we launched six GMLRS 3 in the center of Sadr City (in 2008, not the halcyon shoot-em-up days of 2003). We still launched the missiles. So, sorry, I’m just not sure it’s a real issue. Hell, they already disbanded the Civilian Casualties Board, so … if there was one thing in SECDEF’s speech that made me wary of how it could carry over to the far, far more ominous things in the president’s ramble-of-consciousness, that would be it.
I think the whole “we need to be able to kill things” message and tone were misleading, childish, and misguided, with subtle notes of fashy (will to power, y’all) and here’s why: We live in a frighteningly complex world, with layers and layers of things that, no matter how much will and savagery you want to muster, matter. Ignore at your own peril. Ask Bibi.
And this idea that our military has failed (um, when?) because we couldn’t be badass enough is entirely fictional. Ask the Russians how that whole “We don’t give a fuck, kill with impunity” thing is going for them right now. Bad strategic decisions aren’t bad because we never truly invested in killing our way out of the problem.
Anyway, this isn’t everything I think, but it will suffice.
Robert McTague is a poet, occasional thinker about geopolitics, and retired military officer who lives in Lusaka, Zambia. He did two tours in Iraq, and also served in Kuwait, Qatar, Korea, Croatia, Romania, and Turkey. He completed two NATO tours as well. He once wrote a piece for Foreign Policy’s Best Defense site, and his poetry has been published in four literary journals.
Claire—the comments about Hegseth’s speech on r/Army and other r/military threads are brutal. I’ve copied a whole bunch of them below because I found them compulsively readable—my day just disappeared reading them—so I thought you might, too. But if you don’t, a handful will be enough for you to get the idea: They’re mostly variations on the same theme. (Some of them are really funny and perceptive, though—it would be a shame to miss them.)
A few observations:
- I don’t know, of course, that the authors are really who they claim to be.
- I suspect most of them are, though. The diction is hard to fake. Russian bots don’t talk this way, and neither do civilians.
- The universal reaction certainly confirms what Robert is saying. But remember that Reddit’s enforcement of its terms of service drives off the MAGA-inclined, so this probably isn’t a representative sample.
- That said, I didn’t cherry-pick. The commenters just happen, all of them, to have had the same reaction.
- I found reading these immensely reassuring. If this is our military, I sure can’t see them turning our cities into Tiananmen Square.
- In fact, on reading this, I felt a surge of pride and mad love for these guys.
- On the other hand, it’s definitely not a good thing when your military feels complete contempt for your civilian leadership.
- This, clearly, is why Hegseth wants to prohibit “anonymous comments.”
|
