I think the type of officer who succeeded in the Obama / Biden military was better at prosecuting cultural wars than actual ones…
The left has always treated the military as a social engineering exercise…and de-emphasizing the masculine warrior culture was its biggest priority. This crap was beginning as I left the military in the early 90s. It only got worse. And guess what, we haven't had much success militarily since.
Some of the shit the military was forced to do - like prepare for climate change - had absolutely nothing to do with readiness and everything to do with appeasing the Groups. Lowering standards so women could fight in combat had nothing to do with readiness and everything to do with supplicating the feminist left. Ditto for the trans shit, body positivity nonsense, and Pride Month.
Hegseth isn't politicizing the military. He is de-politicizing it, and going back to the standards that existed before the Great Awokening. I am sure the Obama-era generals and admirals are going to be pissed at the new direction. So what? They will be retiring over the next few years anyway.
Of course this speech won't go over well with the Cultural Left - he is skewering all of their shibboleths at once. It will go over with the troops though. And they are the ones that matter, not the chattering classes in DC, NY and LA.
Mostly agree. The speech wasn't for the people in that room. The speech was for the wider audience well outside the room: "I can make these people come here and listen to me."
It's BECAUSE you can do this in email that we need to understand the medium is the message.
Using blue cities as a training ground is certainly a sea change. Although it does also seem critical to emphasize the military importance of physical fitness. Who knew?
I heard that there were roaming bands of masked thugs kidnapping people. Was that antifa? I’m sorry to see that you have so little respect for the fine local men in blue, that you think sending in the marines is necessary.
This is the 10% where I disagree with you. It's huge in military culture to make a thing in-person when email would suffice on an information-only level, especially post-COVID with the technological awakening those years unlocked. Doing this move articulates it as his top priority. He took a sip of coffee in the middle of this speech and made sure to notice it aloud.
This meeting was the start of a policy shift and realignment, no doubt. Calling for it forces an unambiguous milestone into existence.
But the cost is really high: He flew in 800 people, many from a great distance, and made them sit there as props. I assume that's why no Secretary of Defense ever did this before.
This is the DoD, they probably spent that much burning thru unused ammo at the end of a fiscal year. It's probably a rounding error on the cost overruns of the Ford class aircraft carriers.
Funny as always but I’m having a hard time keeping a sense of humour about that meeting. Hegseth’s bufoonery was what it was but Trump came with a specific message that the generals should be prepared to be deployed inside blue cities.
You really know nothing of military culture if you think the message Hegseth was making and the method he choose to do it could have been done in email. You are absolutely 100% wrong. I had several leadership roles in the military and in all of them I usually waited a few months to get the lay of the land on whta is working and what is not before making any changes. Then I usually had a meeting with senior folks to clearly state what, if anything, was to be changed. It happens at all levels very frequently. Doing it face to face, if possible, is always best. Furthermore, in every military organization there were always regular “all-hands” meetings in which leadership passed on their priorities, as well as acknowledgements and awards and current news. This always happens, so this kind of thing is not unprecedented other than its scope.
One big example was at Robins AFB back in 2004 when a new 0-8 took over command. At that time the base was the worst in USAF for union and EEO type complaints. Well, to set the record straight he had face-to-face meetings with everyone who worked there. Rented out an auditorium in town and had about 15-20 large meeting to give his talk. Made sure that all shifts were covered and bussing was provided from workplace. All this to ensure there were no misunderstandings and the message was clearly stated. Emails and letters and such would not have had the intended affect.
So I suggest that on things like this you stay out of it. You interprit it as showing off, and you are wrong. Obviously, Hegseth had been in the job enough to get a feel for things and believed that a “Come to Jesus” was needed (and I have been thru sevewral of those!), and not just for a few but for all senior leaders, and he wanted to make sure they got the message. So he delivered it like he should, face-to-face, like a good leader would - not hiding behind some stupid email or newsletter.
Now you might have an issue with the content, but again not knowing anything of the military your opinion is not worht much. Most currently serving and former military that I know and read see nothing wrong with the content. Hegseth was reminding the senior leaders of their job since the last several years seems to resulted in many having lost that focus.
Then why has no one else ever done what Hegseth did in the history of the Department of Defense? Might it be true that it makes sense to do things face-to-face when you don't have to, say, fly people in from Greenland and make them sit in an audience with 800 other people and give no feedback?
I already agree it is unprecedented, but since I'm not in the know on current Pentagon and beyond happenings I will give slack and let the man do his job. There is no doubt in my mind that Milley/Autin team were the worst I have seen in my ~40 of DOD experience so maybe extrodinary things are called for. Although I was not close to my last 0-7 I am pretty sure he was in agreement with all that Hegseth said (yes, he was there).
Lastly, that is the type of meeting when there is no feedback. It was not a policy meeting or discuss the options meeting, it was a "these are the rules" meeting. I've been on the recieving end several times and been on the giving end a few times. The place for "is this the right thing to do" is before the meeting, not during or after. It is message given and you better damn well listen...
There are two things here: 1) The policy, and 2) The decision to have this particular meeting to discuss the policy. I haven't commented on the policy because that is, indeed, outside my area of knowledge. (though not for nothin', I'm on record a thousand times saying that meritocratic methods of promotion are the only ones that work -- one example of many: https://tinyurl.com/3w6wyw8b)
But why was this the first policy shift in the history of the DOD deemed so important that it required this type of meeting? Hegseth's speech contained no new information; it's the same stuff he's been talking about since he got the job. Much (all?) of it has already been made policy. So, let me offer a theory as to why this meeting was called: Pete Hegseth -- recently a TV personality -- is an egomaniac who wanted to raise his profile. That would explain why the meeting was televised; I cannot think of a single reason to televise this meeting other than that the real goal was to goose Hegseth's Q-rating. The generals were props; Hegseth wasted their time for a self-serving publicity stunt. This theory is consistent with reports that Hegseth is considering a run for public office (https://tinyurl.com/4ec2h7v2) and (unverified but extant) reports that Hegseth is an image-obsessed maniac (https://tinyurl.com/6pcxk584, https://tinyurl.com/mu79zd99).
Well there was no "exchange" of information -- the generals just sat there -- so we can conclude that a guy who retired as a major held this meeting to establish his authority over people who rose to the rank of general/admiral. I'll bet they loved that.
I'm going to predict that this will not be held up as a model of an effective meeting in the future.
I gather you don't approve of the concept of a civilian leadership over the Defense Department? I was brought up with the belief system this is the ideal in a democracy.
Civilian leaders of the department of defense generally understand their role- an interface between military leadership and civilian oversight, budget priorities, managing logistics and production, etc.
They understand their role isn't to be the Sergeant Major of the Defense Department.
I would say it IS a strategic shift. Albeit one that could have been made over email, but any shift that was an announcement versus a back-and-forth is. The in person aspect just emphasized the perceived importance of it, that it wasn't just another memo but a change in mindset.
As for the merit of the shift, I found even on reddit the majority of current or former military personnel, who did lots of "I hate Trump but" caveating, felt it was appropriate for standards to apply across the board, and at most it should vary based on the demands of your duties.
The HR-kumbaya whining over Hegseth's speech reminds me of one of PJ O'Rourke best quotes:
"That all our public freedoms and democratic rights depend on a secret and autocratic institution is an irony, if you're stupid enough to think so. Life is full of ironies for the stupid."
“This meeting was karma for all the hour-long safety briefings soldiers had to endure before the weekend.” I wish that were my observation - even worse, I forgot where I heard it. But anyone who enlisted in the Army recognizes this as the perfect observation about the generals and admirals. I never met a sergeant - not a single one - who didn’t admonish some variation of: “If you’re drinking, don’t go in the water.” Yeah, yeah, I get it Mom.
It is a bit ironic that as we used to mock the keyboard warriors since computer skills are becoming a much more important battle skill than bicep musculature. Tanks and infantry are no longer be leading the charge.
I think the type of officer who succeeded in the Obama / Biden military was better at prosecuting cultural wars than actual ones…
The left has always treated the military as a social engineering exercise…and de-emphasizing the masculine warrior culture was its biggest priority. This crap was beginning as I left the military in the early 90s. It only got worse. And guess what, we haven't had much success militarily since.
Some of the shit the military was forced to do - like prepare for climate change - had absolutely nothing to do with readiness and everything to do with appeasing the Groups. Lowering standards so women could fight in combat had nothing to do with readiness and everything to do with supplicating the feminist left. Ditto for the trans shit, body positivity nonsense, and Pride Month.
Hegseth isn't politicizing the military. He is de-politicizing it, and going back to the standards that existed before the Great Awokening. I am sure the Obama-era generals and admirals are going to be pissed at the new direction. So what? They will be retiring over the next few years anyway.
Of course this speech won't go over well with the Cultural Left - he is skewering all of their shibboleths at once. It will go over with the troops though. And they are the ones that matter, not the chattering classes in DC, NY and LA.
Mostly agree. The speech wasn't for the people in that room. The speech was for the wider audience well outside the room: "I can make these people come here and listen to me."
It's BECAUSE you can do this in email that we need to understand the medium is the message.
idk. If it was in an email, it would be ignored.
This is a sea change. And those need to be done in person.
Exactly, I think we're in agreement. It's fucking difficult to ignore a face-to-face meeting of any kind, especially something on this scale.
Using blue cities as a training ground is certainly a sea change. Although it does also seem critical to emphasize the military importance of physical fitness. Who knew?
I don't know the context of the blue cities comment. I assume he is referring to defending Federal buildings from Antifa terrorists.
Which is a valid use of the US military.
I heard that there were roaming bands of masked thugs kidnapping people. Was that antifa? I’m sorry to see that you have so little respect for the fine local men in blue, that you think sending in the marines is necessary.
After 4 years of openly flouting immigration law, the left can't whine about the fix.
We'll be the very model of a modern network TV show
Each time that we walk into this august and famous studio
We're starting out from scratch after a run of 20 years or so
We hope that you don't mind that our producer was caught doing blow
(Best TV show ever)
"This Gilbert and Sullivan parody will show that we're edgy and relevant again!" Classic.
This is the 10% where I disagree with you. It's huge in military culture to make a thing in-person when email would suffice on an information-only level, especially post-COVID with the technological awakening those years unlocked. Doing this move articulates it as his top priority. He took a sip of coffee in the middle of this speech and made sure to notice it aloud.
This meeting was the start of a policy shift and realignment, no doubt. Calling for it forces an unambiguous milestone into existence.
But the cost is really high: He flew in 800 people, many from a great distance, and made them sit there as props. I assume that's why no Secretary of Defense ever did this before.
This is the DoD, they probably spent that much burning thru unused ammo at the end of a fiscal year. It's probably a rounding error on the cost overruns of the Ford class aircraft carriers.
Funny as always but I’m having a hard time keeping a sense of humour about that meeting. Hegseth’s bufoonery was what it was but Trump came with a specific message that the generals should be prepared to be deployed inside blue cities.
You really know nothing of military culture if you think the message Hegseth was making and the method he choose to do it could have been done in email. You are absolutely 100% wrong. I had several leadership roles in the military and in all of them I usually waited a few months to get the lay of the land on whta is working and what is not before making any changes. Then I usually had a meeting with senior folks to clearly state what, if anything, was to be changed. It happens at all levels very frequently. Doing it face to face, if possible, is always best. Furthermore, in every military organization there were always regular “all-hands” meetings in which leadership passed on their priorities, as well as acknowledgements and awards and current news. This always happens, so this kind of thing is not unprecedented other than its scope.
One big example was at Robins AFB back in 2004 when a new 0-8 took over command. At that time the base was the worst in USAF for union and EEO type complaints. Well, to set the record straight he had face-to-face meetings with everyone who worked there. Rented out an auditorium in town and had about 15-20 large meeting to give his talk. Made sure that all shifts were covered and bussing was provided from workplace. All this to ensure there were no misunderstandings and the message was clearly stated. Emails and letters and such would not have had the intended affect.
So I suggest that on things like this you stay out of it. You interprit it as showing off, and you are wrong. Obviously, Hegseth had been in the job enough to get a feel for things and believed that a “Come to Jesus” was needed (and I have been thru sevewral of those!), and not just for a few but for all senior leaders, and he wanted to make sure they got the message. So he delivered it like he should, face-to-face, like a good leader would - not hiding behind some stupid email or newsletter.
Now you might have an issue with the content, but again not knowing anything of the military your opinion is not worht much. Most currently serving and former military that I know and read see nothing wrong with the content. Hegseth was reminding the senior leaders of their job since the last several years seems to resulted in many having lost that focus.
Then why has no one else ever done what Hegseth did in the history of the Department of Defense? Might it be true that it makes sense to do things face-to-face when you don't have to, say, fly people in from Greenland and make them sit in an audience with 800 other people and give no feedback?
The emptiness of the "Richard" profile causes me to question his military experience.
Jeff, it appears that a bunch of bootlicking righties discovered your article.
I already agree it is unprecedented, but since I'm not in the know on current Pentagon and beyond happenings I will give slack and let the man do his job. There is no doubt in my mind that Milley/Autin team were the worst I have seen in my ~40 of DOD experience so maybe extrodinary things are called for. Although I was not close to my last 0-7 I am pretty sure he was in agreement with all that Hegseth said (yes, he was there).
Lastly, that is the type of meeting when there is no feedback. It was not a policy meeting or discuss the options meeting, it was a "these are the rules" meeting. I've been on the recieving end several times and been on the giving end a few times. The place for "is this the right thing to do" is before the meeting, not during or after. It is message given and you better damn well listen...
There are two things here: 1) The policy, and 2) The decision to have this particular meeting to discuss the policy. I haven't commented on the policy because that is, indeed, outside my area of knowledge. (though not for nothin', I'm on record a thousand times saying that meritocratic methods of promotion are the only ones that work -- one example of many: https://tinyurl.com/3w6wyw8b)
But why was this the first policy shift in the history of the DOD deemed so important that it required this type of meeting? Hegseth's speech contained no new information; it's the same stuff he's been talking about since he got the job. Much (all?) of it has already been made policy. So, let me offer a theory as to why this meeting was called: Pete Hegseth -- recently a TV personality -- is an egomaniac who wanted to raise his profile. That would explain why the meeting was televised; I cannot think of a single reason to televise this meeting other than that the real goal was to goose Hegseth's Q-rating. The generals were props; Hegseth wasted their time for a self-serving publicity stunt. This theory is consistent with reports that Hegseth is considering a run for public office (https://tinyurl.com/4ec2h7v2) and (unverified but extant) reports that Hegseth is an image-obsessed maniac (https://tinyurl.com/6pcxk584, https://tinyurl.com/mu79zd99).
I regret that I have but one like to give, Colonel.
Tell me you've never had an Effective Meetings class, without telling me you've never had an Effective Meetings class.
TL;DR: Meetings are held for two reasons. To exchange information, and to establish authority.
Well there was no "exchange" of information -- the generals just sat there -- so we can conclude that a guy who retired as a major held this meeting to establish his authority over people who rose to the rank of general/admiral. I'll bet they loved that.
I'm going to predict that this will not be held up as a model of an effective meeting in the future.
I gather you don't approve of the concept of a civilian leadership over the Defense Department? I was brought up with the belief system this is the ideal in a democracy.
Civilian leaders of the department of defense generally understand their role- an interface between military leadership and civilian oversight, budget priorities, managing logistics and production, etc.
They understand their role isn't to be the Sergeant Major of the Defense Department.
Hegseth didn't set the expectations of the government?
This show was put on for gullible suckers.
I would say it IS a strategic shift. Albeit one that could have been made over email, but any shift that was an announcement versus a back-and-forth is. The in person aspect just emphasized the perceived importance of it, that it wasn't just another memo but a change in mindset.
As for the merit of the shift, I found even on reddit the majority of current or former military personnel, who did lots of "I hate Trump but" caveating, felt it was appropriate for standards to apply across the board, and at most it should vary based on the demands of your duties.
The HR-kumbaya whining over Hegseth's speech reminds me of one of PJ O'Rourke best quotes:
"That all our public freedoms and democratic rights depend on a secret and autocratic institution is an irony, if you're stupid enough to think so. Life is full of ironies for the stupid."
"Scratching my cheek while giving you the finger" hey I'll have to try that!
Save me some bruises.....
“This meeting was karma for all the hour-long safety briefings soldiers had to endure before the weekend.” I wish that were my observation - even worse, I forgot where I heard it. But anyone who enlisted in the Army recognizes this as the perfect observation about the generals and admirals. I never met a sergeant - not a single one - who didn’t admonish some variation of: “If you’re drinking, don’t go in the water.” Yeah, yeah, I get it Mom.
It is a bit ironic that as we used to mock the keyboard warriors since computer skills are becoming a much more important battle skill than bicep musculature. Tanks and infantry are no longer be leading the charge.
Pretty soon Fletcher Knebel’s _Night of Camp David_ will have to be reclassified as non-fiction.
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/01/the-paranoid-thriller-that-foretold-trumps-foreign-policy/681430/?gift=OeT_GxaR0YTfvHbXCiSG2GodFgALpEv3RfjJT-29L8I