[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
WORLD WAR III Title: "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" If the U.S. military wants to maintain its standing with the American people, its leadership needs to display some moral courage. I must confess that I did not have Pete Hegseth as Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary on my bingo card. I was aware that he was a regular on Fox News, but I was not really familiar with him. Of course, Hegseth is being criticized for his lack of qualifications. He is also being subjected to the obligatory charge of sexual misconduct, à la Brett Kavanaugh. Whether this will derail his nomination remains to be seen. But there is a strong case to be made for him or someone like him. It is undeniable that Hegseth lacks the sort of background one might expect of the person who’s meant to run the largest bureaucracy in the world, with a budget of $841 billion. In addition, he is not a member of the “national security clerisy” from which so many of past SecDefs have been drawn. But he is not without accomplishments: He has served extended periods on active duty as a commissioned officer in the National Guard. He has multiple deployments under his belt and holds the Combat Infantryman Badge, which recognizes the unique contribution of the infantry soldier, whose mission is “to close with and destroy” the enemy. He was twice awarded the Bronze Star Medal. And for those who are impressed with academic credentials, he holds two degrees from Ivy League schools. Hegseth has the qualities necessary to address what I believe to be the two most critical problems that the Pentagon faces today: (1) the lack of accountability on the part of senior officers and (2) the weakening of the American defense establishment’s commitment to the martial virtues and the military ethos. First, it seems abundantly clear that accountability has been missing in the U.S. military for some time. Recently, a Marine officer was court- martialed for social-media posts in which he demanded a reckoning after 13 service members were killed in a suicide bombing at the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul during the disastrous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Appearing in uniform on multiple occasions, Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Scheller demanded answers from political and military leaders. But as one Army officer observed during the early phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom, “As it stands now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war.” The Wall Street Journal recently published an article that claims that the Trump transition team has drafted an executive order that would “create a board to purge generals, . . . which if enacted, could fast- track the removal” of flag and general officers “found to be lacking in requisite leadership qualities.” Although the article goes on to claim that some view this as an attempt to politicize the military, given the president-elect’s vow to fire “woke generals,” it is in keeping with the pre–World War II “plucking board” established by Army chief of staff George Marshall to review officers’ records and “remove from line promotion any officer for reasons deemed good and sufficient.” The goal, of course, was to remove “dead wood” in order to make room for younger and more capable officers. The second, and more fundamental, problem is that too many in the government in general and the Pentagon in particular seem to have forgotten the purpose of the U.S. military. We ask our military to do many things beyond soldiering, but its primary purpose remains what Samuel Huntington, in his classic study of U.S. civil–military relations, The Soldier and the State, called its functional imperative: to fight and win wars. The foundation of this functional imperative is a military “ethos,” which underpins unit cohesion and thereby military effectiveness and fosters trust among soldiers, between superiors and subordinates, and, at the societal level, between soldiers and citizens. It has long been an article of faith that, to execute its functional imperative on behalf of the nation, the military of necessity must maintain an identity distinct from that of liberal society. Indeed, a democratic republic faces a paradox: The military cannot govern itself in accordance with the democratic principles of society at large. If the military fails, the society it protects may not survive. And long experience has taught us that certain kinds of behavior are destructive of good order, discipline, and morale, without which a military organization will certainly fail. The goal of military policy must be victory on the battlefield — a purpose that cannot be in competition with any other, including the provision of entitlements, “equal opportunity,” or diversity. Indeed, the battlefield mocks “diversity.” Unfortunately, many of those in positions of responsibility — including far too many senior members of the military itself — seem to have forgotten this imperative. This attitude is the result of another set of social forces that Huntington called the societal imperative, “the social forces, ideologies, and institutions dominant within the society,” which tends to undermine the martial virtues and the military ethos. Huntington was concerned that, in the long run, the social imperative would prevail over the functional imperative, thereby undermining military effectiveness. According to Huntington, when the external threat was low, those who favored the societal imperative sought “extirpation,” the virtual elimination of military forces. When the external threat was higher, they pursued a policy of “transmutation,” refashioning the military along liberal lines by stripping it of its “particularly military characteristics.” Today, with the U.S. military’s submission to the ideology of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), we have transmutation on steroids. Indeed, diversity now seemingly trumps battlefield effectiveness as the goal of military policy. But the Pentagon’s attempts to address an alleged lack of “diversity” in the ranks can worsen the situation because “identity politics,” which suggests that justice is a function of attributes such as sex and skin color rather than individual excellence, tends to divide people rather than unify them. This undermines military effectiveness, which depends on cohesion born of trust among those who operate together. For most of American history, U.S. military leadership stood up for the military ethos, explaining to fellow citizens why it is critical to its effectiveness. It is in large part for this reason that the military has remained one of the most respected institutions in America. But, now, the commitment to “diversity” at all costs is the party line within the Pentagon. No one wants to be accused of racism or sexism, therefore too many officers hold their tongues as the rank and file are indoctrinated by DEI and the like. Those who don’t can find themselves sacked. Many distinguished men have held the position of SecDef, but even some with the most sterling credentials, such as James Forrestal, Robert McNamara, Les Aspin, and Donald Rumsfeld, have fallen short of success. Each of these individuals faced different problems. The more successful were able to adapt to the circumstances, whether these involved changes in the security environment, developments in technology, or the availability of resources. The problems that today’s military faces are different and require a correspondingly different sort of SecDef. Hegseth fits the bill. He can start by insisting on the accountability of senior officers and demanding that the officer corps renew its commitment to the military ethos as the foundation of professionalism. The unfortunate fact is that, although the U.S. military claims to be professional, it acts like just another self-interested bureaucracy. Officers owe it to their profession — and, more importantly, to the American people — to subject themselves to the demands of accountability. Equally important is that they say publicly what most say privately: that bending the military ethos to the demands of DEI undermines military effectiveness, and this will lead inexorably to a disaster on some future battlefield. If the U.S. military wants to maintain its standing with the American people, its leadership needs to display some moral courage. Perhaps Hegseth can help provide the requisite backbone. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|