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.
Hegseth has been talking about all that stuff since he took office. The point here is that he wasted an enormous amount of time and resources to put all these generals in a room and talk *at* them, not with them, play-acting like he was in a movie.
And not for nothing, but climate change preparedness has been a critical military mission for a while now - plenty of actual leaders have said so. The potential for global social and political upheaval it presents is a serious national security issue for the United States.
It was what we used to call in the military a "one-way conversation." If you didn't serve you probably wouldn't get it.
Climate was a "critical issue" because Saint Barack directed the military to declare it one. Again, the Groups run the democrat party and that is why it happened.
It is a completely astroturfed issue that has nothing to do with actual military readiness.
America's military has been concerned with climate since the dustbowl. Yes, Saint Barack did throw more money at it, but, like the Big Automakers, it's still national security. Military Readiness isn't the only issue domestically (foreign infiltration of plagues is a hot one these days...)
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.
Um, in 2020 Portland, when they "sent in the feds" all they really did was Deputize Local Police. then if the protestors touched Officer Friendly, they could be thrown in the Federal Pokey (where the Portland DA wouldn't be able to throw them back out onto the streets).
Who’s talking about doubling down on anything? Maybe you could discuss the things I said instead. If you’re going to have a conversation with yourself, I don’t need to be around for it.
Yeah. How is opposing Hegseth’s nonsense “doubling down” on anything? You’re the one asking for radical change. I don’t GAF whether the military is “woke” or not, while you appear obsessed with it. And I’m the weird one?
"The most effective military" -- um, then why hasn't Ukraine won? We gave them all our intelligence, and we ALSO gave them planes and tanks and even automobiles. Not to mention anti-missile defenses...
To be clear, your question is “if the US military is so great, why hasn’t a different one won a war”?
There is so much more that goes into being an effective military besides intelligence and equipment. And I don’t understand how the alleged “wokeness” of our military that is supposedly making it weak would have somehow passed on to Ukraine via Patriot missiles and intercepted cables.
You're discussing this as if we haven't been fighting the war for the Ukraine, directing battle plans and strategic objectives.
And I'm not making fun of the Ukrainians for shooting down their own F-16s. I'm discussing our materiel versus the Russian materiel.
In terms of wokeness, you can take your pick: "All female troop deployments to the Ukrainian front lines" (yep, didn't end well), or "distribution of HIV positive blood to casualties" (this was actually a logistics triumph. hard to get that much blood plain period) -- the Ukrainians were pissed that they were given "African blood" Lotta Hitler worship in the Ukraine.
This speech was not for the generals, you dolt. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been televised. It was for people like you, Fox News and “alternative media” viewers, so you would be impressed by Hegseth being tough and cool in front of the woke sissy generals. Nothing important was communicated and the generals got absolutely nothing of value out of this retarded stunt.
You said nothing of the sort. You act as if this was a “sea change” for the military when it was just a substance-free glorified campaign rally for a TV audience using the generals as a set piece.
* Which military "successes" from the pre-90's would you like to point to as evidence that the problem is social engineering?
* How do you propose to solve the long-standing problems of military retention and recruitment? Every branch of the military is understaffed as it is. Loose or low standards are their own problem. But so are high ones! There isn't enough manpower to do all the jobs that currently exist, and if you raise the bar or start excluding entire categories of people then you are just going to make those shortfalls worse.
You can go Googling the numbers yourself - they are *not* pretty. If Hesgeth wants to be taken seriously then he should probably articulate a clear strategy for this.
Desert Storm was pre-social engineering. I would point to that as the best benchmark prior to the Great Awokening which began in the mid-90s. I know you want to exclude that but I am not going to do that.
The military has tried so hard to attract the sort of recruit the Theater Kids want that it turned off the the type of recruit who is most suitable. Hegseth gets that.
The dude lifts and PTs with the troops. That is motivating.
How would you "know I want to exclude that"? It was a genuine question. I'm quite familiar with military history myself, and I can think of many disastrous military ops that happened pre-90s, as well as some that were successful. I just think that connecting that success to a supposed lack of "social engineering" is a very long bow to draw. More likely, it's because those operations had clear objectives and quantifiable end states, and were conducted against designated opposing military forces. (In the case of Desert Storm we're also leaving out a massive technological and doctrinal imbalance between the two sides!)
You say that the military trying to cast a wider recruiting net has turned off the type of recruit that is most suitable. Do you have any evidence for this? Again, this is a genuine question.
For the record, I'm active duty military myself (enlisted) and this is my 15th year. I've served in a variety of different postings, pretty evenly split between combat units and desk jobs, and deployed on operations three times. In that time I have met a very wide variety of personalities who joined for all sorts of different reasons. Anecdotally I have come across very little evidence of what you're describing. I actually do partially agree that military recruiting campaigns are not very good. What I *don't* agree on is that they are turning people off who would have joined otherwise. I've met plenty of people who match Hesgeth's stereotype down to a T, and a lot who don't, and none of that shit had any bearing at all on how good they were at their job.
Yes, it's nice that the self-proclaimed Secretary Of War looks after his fitness. Leadership starts at the top, after all. But surely you would acknowledge that there is a whole lot more to the job once you ascend to that level of management! It's all well and good to talk about how you want troops to be feared lethal well-groomed killing machines blah blah blah. HOW is this going to be achieved, though? For the length of his tedious lecture, it sure was pretty fucking light on actionable content.
The Afghanistan Withdrawal had clear objectives and quantifiable end states. The theater kids up top didn't want to hear about the problems with said plan. They wanted to extend Trump's timeline for a POS photo op -- and that really pissed the Taliban off. The taliban suborned the Afghani government using Whatsapp -- that's an american product with american-sized security holes.
The oxymoron (milint) says that the "casting a wider recruiting net" has turned off the "Born Fighting" crew (I'm citing the west point book) -- the folks who have been military for generations.
All sorts of fools join the military, and they all seem to get things done... that's true. But there's a difference between "you're all welcome here, you'll fit right in, private" and "We model our tanks for pregnant women" (that's the Germans I know).
The military officer I know is climbing the equivalent of Mount Everest on a weekly basis, just to hit weight (yes, I know, to do the basic physical fitness his rank requires).
Bribing the Soviets with video games to keep Berlin running smoothly (it was a theater kid hive, it was constantly on the verge of falling apart). But think about it for a moment: this requires making a good game (and one that Soviets would like.) The Slavs still play the game, too, 20+ years later (because they Never Throw Anything Out that Works).
The only reason the Biden Administration didn't institute a draft was that they thought the officers required to make it stick would just get shot in the sticks. You've got the propaganda geniuses (see above video games) promoted now, and their plan is to get the "Born Fighting" crew back. Women are fine in the service, if they can fit into the boots and do the marches and physical fitness.
Excluding transfolk is excluding less than 1% of Americans. At least if you are only excluding the ones that can't be meaningfully deployed to combat situations. If you're also excluding the ones that "break ribbones from laughing too hard" (military example, dead serious), then it's about 1%.
The Department of Deer Warfare would like to disagree with "prepare for climate change" as an "absolutely nothing to do with readiness" element of our national security plan. Food security is absolutely a part of our National Security (and when they pull climate change from the military curriculum, DARPA is still going to be making anti-deer weaponry).
Nobody should be lowering standards, and we're rewriting our military propaganda so that we can get the "Born Fighting" crew back.
By your own admission, Hegseth is giving this speech to the Cultural Left in the military. (By the way, don't despair: we've known for ages that political generals get promoted. Military has a whole alternative chain of command for "in case of Total War")
What, you didn't like the preparation for invading London? The DoD's preparation for an attack on Kabul got FUBARed when the 2020 riots started (hence the military should have been using the 2018 plan, not the one that didn't get made in 2020), but that doesn't mean they didn't have a plan for "what to do" in case of an attack.
That the nimrods couldn't be bothered to even have caltrops on hand, is no fault of the Planners.
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 don't do profiles and have no social media accounts really. I don't lie and let my words speak for themselves, and I won't get into credentialism games. Even if I filled out a profile what difference would that make since that could all be a lie, too.
So, let me get this straight, you don't introduce yourself as "The oxymoron?" You don't have any special knowledge here? You don't have any institutional knowledge here?
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 said, Jeff. So many of these chowderhead appointees can only conceive of serving in their roles as though they were playing the role in a movie. Hegseth's stupid stunt calls to mind Kash Patel's uber-cringey press conference about Kirk's shooter where you can just tell he was trying to hide his boner as he said "We got him," then rambled about Valhalla or some shit. God, what dweebs.
Nearly all appointees are chowder. Clinton was decent at her job, as was Alcoa's CEO (who resigned rather than deal with GWB). Most are merely "worked around." But that's also true of generals, half the time. They exist to get funding, and politick.
I didn't add this part earlier since I was hitting the road. The meeting was unusual but not too farout of the norm. The big difference is televising it. Normally this sort of thing is kept "in the family". Nonetheless, I'm guessing there are two reasons.
Firstly, he is not just telling leadership, but also all uniformed members (and also DOD civilians) that the change is driven from top down and everyone gets same message. I have seen this done where a mass email goes out with links to a talk on DOD-wide website for all to access. However, most people including myself, normally don't watch them. By doing it publicly it gets news and is more likely to get the average person (especially civilians) to watch and get the message. This was the annual SHARP or Ethics training type of thing.
The second reason is to force an accountability upon himself and his staff. It's easy to make pronouncements and 2 years later very little has been done. Seen this time and again. By doing this so publicly it means more likely folks will hold accountable to some degree.
Finally, there probably is some politics going on, but it did not seem that was even in top 3-4 reasons for doing it.
Allow a different reason? Perhaps there was some sort of "smaller meeting" happening under the cover of the "big meeting"? Maybe more than one? You can distribute "secret orders" more securely in person. Maybe "in case of chinese attack, do xyz."
If Hegseth thought it wise to deliver the message face to face, he should have gone to them. The SecDef doing a personal tour of, say, 50 major military bases around the world would have demonstrated real leadership, shown respect for his employees, given him a chance to take the measure of the troops, and avoided humiliating his boss -- all while saving a ton of time and money.
I'm out of sync with CONUS time zones, so late to this conversation. I agree with huge swaths of what you're saying except this:
"So I suggest that on things like this you stay out of it. You interprit it as showing off, and you are wrong."
I want people who don't understand the culture to weigh in. Even if people are misunderstanding the context and the motivations, it helps bridge the gap between civilian and military life to have these conversations in the open.
Almost all of my friends are or were in the service. It's good to be reminded of the perspective on the outside.
I would normally agree but folks have persisted in not getting it despite many who have tried to correct them. Even had one lady refer me to her motivational speaking class on the correct way to do this sort of thing. So yes, I've been a bit short. A command structure completely goes over their head - like explaining snow to Amazonian tribes (something I have related experience with).
I poked around on her website. Hello, JocelynRDavis.
Ain't no fucking way 19-year-olds are taking an airstrip while someone quotes Shakespeare to them, even if it is Henry V.
I truly don't mind people enjoying the stuff that she apparently enjoys - go for it! - but you have to understand the limits of one field as applied to another. I would not suggest the Duffel Blog qualifies a person for a seat on the MoMA board. I would not suggest handing out Motrin qualifies a corpsman for a medical license in the Democratic People's Republic of Won't-Be-Found-On-Maps-in-2100-istan. I would not suggest the DFAC offerings qualify as food.
I would - I do - suggest that going from COCOM to COCOM and relaying the same talking point will not have the same impact as doing it the way he did. Oh - and he already does travel the world to visit leadership, anyway. For him, the method of delivery was just as important as the words he actually said.
BTW, the Jeff Maurer guy posted two more notes with same attitude on Hegseth talk despite me and others trying to reason with him. Either he ignores his own tagline and is too full of himself or he posts to stir things up or he really is just stupid.
I'm a subscriber of his. He's generally quite funny and irreverent. This one, though, was off the mark in its understanding of what was actually happening. Some things you have to experience to understand, military culture being one of them, and our norms really don't translate well.
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.
You're assuming generals aren't reading classified briefs on the plane? I mean, seriously, it's two hours. And two hours with the Boss articulating "where I think our strategic objectives are these days" (even if that's "stop being so fat, the weight loss program is back in force.) is a HELL of a lot better than two hours spent discussing "what your pronouns are" (and yes, I know a military guy who did that for two hours, instead of counting dead Russians).
We expect our military to sleep on the floor, and like it. They can sleep on the plane too.
Well more than 800 people flew there. Each of those GO/FOs has an ADC, many of them travel with personal security and comms teams, etc. Price-wise, however, these people already have enormous travel budgets. This will likely be marginal from a dollar perspective.
The military is a high-context society. SEC Hegseth understands it well enough to fully understand what meeting he called.
It would be a big deal for any given command for its singular commanding officer to be told to drop everything and come to DC on short notice.
The meeting was the administration's announcement that there is a new sheriff in town.
"we are reinstituting the weight loss protocols that were suspended under covid19" -- this seems like at least part of the information. Or is this somehow not informative?
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.
Ya so? They won't be doing "police work" without using the insurrection act. And you don't want freakin-military doing police work. "Covering fire" means something different to the armed forces than it does to humans who watch television, who interpret "cover me" as "hold your fire, but be prepared to shoot." (This is a real life example from the LA riots, and milint will cite it to Trump on a "you don't want to do that.")
This is why it was a stupid idea to call in the national guard for Jan 6th. You don't put people whose general action plan for "there's a shooter in an enclosed space with only one exist" is "toss in a grenade and move on" into the US capital, unless you absolutely can't call in police (and yeah, they coulda called in the DC cops, who have training in "how to deal with hostages").
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.
This whole administration is just performative nonsense. Since the Democrats’ popularity is now less than oat milk, they still need to rage at some machine. And produce content. This is the reality internet president and his toadies. Hence, call in the generals! Get the press here! I doubt he earned any respect by playing GI Joe for a bunch of military lifers. It was for his boss.
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.
Of course I believe in civilian leadership of the military but most civilian leaders have the good sense to not lecture generals on how to be a "warrior".
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.
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."
Mr Mauer is just wrong on the substance of this post, however successful or not his comedic japes may have been. Secretary Hegseth was sharing information on an important (and in my view necessary) change in policy and standards. No successful boss could ever do that with an email from HR.
“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.
Yeah, most people who served will say that generals ain't really military, they're politicians. This includes the folks getting promoted for being too insubordinate.
Mr. Maurer has noticed that he cannot explain a meeting using the current variables of "rational governance." Therefore, he mocks the meeting, instead of asking himself, "Okay, what can the CoC get done while everyone is theoretically in town for a meeting?"
Turns out? Rather a lot. It also says the normal CoC is probably compromised...
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.
Hegseth has been talking about all that stuff since he took office. The point here is that he wasted an enormous amount of time and resources to put all these generals in a room and talk *at* them, not with them, play-acting like he was in a movie.
And not for nothing, but climate change preparedness has been a critical military mission for a while now - plenty of actual leaders have said so. The potential for global social and political upheaval it presents is a serious national security issue for the United States.
It was what we used to call in the military a "one-way conversation." If you didn't serve you probably wouldn't get it.
Climate was a "critical issue" because Saint Barack directed the military to declare it one. Again, the Groups run the democrat party and that is why it happened.
It is a completely astroturfed issue that has nothing to do with actual military readiness.
America's military has been concerned with climate since the dustbowl. Yes, Saint Barack did throw more money at it, but, like the Big Automakers, it's still national security. Military Readiness isn't the only issue domestically (foreign infiltration of plagues is a hot one these days...)
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.
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.
And I heard that someone firebombed a rapper's bus in Portland (it had ICE on the side, so, honest mistake?).
"I heard that there were roaming bands of masked thugs kidnapping people."
Like the ones who abducted Rümeysa Öztürk?
Um, in 2020 Portland, when they "sent in the feds" all they really did was Deputize Local Police. then if the protestors touched Officer Friendly, they could be thrown in the Federal Pokey (where the Portland DA wouldn't be able to throw them back out onto the streets).
After 4 years of openly flouting immigration law, the left can't whine about the fix.
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.
But on TV? No.
Jesus Christ.
It’s the most effective military in the world.
Russia subscribes to this exact philosophy and their military is a joke.
I don't think doubling down on the Cultural Left's hobby horses is the key to military superiority.
Eliminating them is.
Who’s talking about doubling down on anything? Maybe you could discuss the things I said instead. If you’re going to have a conversation with yourself, I don’t need to be around for it.
well, you must dislike Hegseth's plans or else you wouldn't be bitching about my endorsement / explanation of them.
Yeah. How is opposing Hegseth’s nonsense “doubling down” on anything? You’re the one asking for radical change. I don’t GAF whether the military is “woke” or not, while you appear obsessed with it. And I’m the weird one?
People with gaping genital gashes (that's their term) that need dilation on a daily basis do not belong in combat zones. That's a walking infection.
Whatever. The military is no longer in the service of making the drama club kids feel good.
The military will be better for it.
"The most effective military" -- um, then why hasn't Ukraine won? We gave them all our intelligence, and we ALSO gave them planes and tanks and even automobiles. Not to mention anti-missile defenses...
To be clear, your question is “if the US military is so great, why hasn’t a different one won a war”?
There is so much more that goes into being an effective military besides intelligence and equipment. And I don’t understand how the alleged “wokeness” of our military that is supposedly making it weak would have somehow passed on to Ukraine via Patriot missiles and intercepted cables.
You're discussing this as if we haven't been fighting the war for the Ukraine, directing battle plans and strategic objectives.
And I'm not making fun of the Ukrainians for shooting down their own F-16s. I'm discussing our materiel versus the Russian materiel.
In terms of wokeness, you can take your pick: "All female troop deployments to the Ukrainian front lines" (yep, didn't end well), or "distribution of HIV positive blood to casualties" (this was actually a logistics triumph. hard to get that much blood plain period) -- the Ukrainians were pissed that they were given "African blood" Lotta Hitler worship in the Ukraine.
This speech was not for the generals, you dolt. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been televised. It was for people like you, Fox News and “alternative media” viewers, so you would be impressed by Hegseth being tough and cool in front of the woke sissy generals. Nothing important was communicated and the generals got absolutely nothing of value out of this retarded stunt.
I said that... they are retiring soon.
Reading comprehension, eunuch.
You said nothing of the sort. You act as if this was a “sea change” for the military when it was just a substance-free glorified campaign rally for a TV audience using the generals as a set piece.
Reversing the Great Awokening is a big deal.
Sorry, but the Theater Kids are no longer calling the shots.
* Which military "successes" from the pre-90's would you like to point to as evidence that the problem is social engineering?
* How do you propose to solve the long-standing problems of military retention and recruitment? Every branch of the military is understaffed as it is. Loose or low standards are their own problem. But so are high ones! There isn't enough manpower to do all the jobs that currently exist, and if you raise the bar or start excluding entire categories of people then you are just going to make those shortfalls worse.
You can go Googling the numbers yourself - they are *not* pretty. If Hesgeth wants to be taken seriously then he should probably articulate a clear strategy for this.
Desert Storm was pre-social engineering. I would point to that as the best benchmark prior to the Great Awokening which began in the mid-90s. I know you want to exclude that but I am not going to do that.
The military has tried so hard to attract the sort of recruit the Theater Kids want that it turned off the the type of recruit who is most suitable. Hegseth gets that.
The dude lifts and PTs with the troops. That is motivating.
How would you "know I want to exclude that"? It was a genuine question. I'm quite familiar with military history myself, and I can think of many disastrous military ops that happened pre-90s, as well as some that were successful. I just think that connecting that success to a supposed lack of "social engineering" is a very long bow to draw. More likely, it's because those operations had clear objectives and quantifiable end states, and were conducted against designated opposing military forces. (In the case of Desert Storm we're also leaving out a massive technological and doctrinal imbalance between the two sides!)
You say that the military trying to cast a wider recruiting net has turned off the type of recruit that is most suitable. Do you have any evidence for this? Again, this is a genuine question.
For the record, I'm active duty military myself (enlisted) and this is my 15th year. I've served in a variety of different postings, pretty evenly split between combat units and desk jobs, and deployed on operations three times. In that time I have met a very wide variety of personalities who joined for all sorts of different reasons. Anecdotally I have come across very little evidence of what you're describing. I actually do partially agree that military recruiting campaigns are not very good. What I *don't* agree on is that they are turning people off who would have joined otherwise. I've met plenty of people who match Hesgeth's stereotype down to a T, and a lot who don't, and none of that shit had any bearing at all on how good they were at their job.
Yes, it's nice that the self-proclaimed Secretary Of War looks after his fitness. Leadership starts at the top, after all. But surely you would acknowledge that there is a whole lot more to the job once you ascend to that level of management! It's all well and good to talk about how you want troops to be feared lethal well-groomed killing machines blah blah blah. HOW is this going to be achieved, though? For the length of his tedious lecture, it sure was pretty fucking light on actionable content.
The Afghanistan Withdrawal had clear objectives and quantifiable end states. The theater kids up top didn't want to hear about the problems with said plan. They wanted to extend Trump's timeline for a POS photo op -- and that really pissed the Taliban off. The taliban suborned the Afghani government using Whatsapp -- that's an american product with american-sized security holes.
The oxymoron (milint) says that the "casting a wider recruiting net" has turned off the "Born Fighting" crew (I'm citing the west point book) -- the folks who have been military for generations.
All sorts of fools join the military, and they all seem to get things done... that's true. But there's a difference between "you're all welcome here, you'll fit right in, private" and "We model our tanks for pregnant women" (that's the Germans I know).
The military officer I know is climbing the equivalent of Mount Everest on a weekly basis, just to hit weight (yes, I know, to do the basic physical fitness his rank requires).
Bribing the Soviets with video games to keep Berlin running smoothly (it was a theater kid hive, it was constantly on the verge of falling apart). But think about it for a moment: this requires making a good game (and one that Soviets would like.) The Slavs still play the game, too, 20+ years later (because they Never Throw Anything Out that Works).
The only reason the Biden Administration didn't institute a draft was that they thought the officers required to make it stick would just get shot in the sticks. You've got the propaganda geniuses (see above video games) promoted now, and their plan is to get the "Born Fighting" crew back. Women are fine in the service, if they can fit into the boots and do the marches and physical fitness.
Excluding transfolk is excluding less than 1% of Americans. At least if you are only excluding the ones that can't be meaningfully deployed to combat situations. If you're also excluding the ones that "break ribbones from laughing too hard" (military example, dead serious), then it's about 1%.
The Department of Deer Warfare would like to disagree with "prepare for climate change" as an "absolutely nothing to do with readiness" element of our national security plan. Food security is absolutely a part of our National Security (and when they pull climate change from the military curriculum, DARPA is still going to be making anti-deer weaponry).
Nobody should be lowering standards, and we're rewriting our military propaganda so that we can get the "Born Fighting" crew back.
By your own admission, Hegseth is giving this speech to the Cultural Left in the military. (By the way, don't despair: we've known for ages that political generals get promoted. Military has a whole alternative chain of command for "in case of Total War")
well, you can take care of the deer population by eliminating hunting season and allowing hunters to take out females.
It was all a virtue-signaling exercise - as if DOD can prepare for something coming in the next year or two, let alone half a century from now, maybe.
What, you didn't like the preparation for invading London? The DoD's preparation for an attack on Kabul got FUBARed when the 2020 riots started (hence the military should have been using the 2018 plan, not the one that didn't get made in 2020), but that doesn't mean they didn't have a plan for "what to do" in case of an attack.
That the nimrods couldn't be bothered to even have caltrops on hand, is no fault of the Planners.
TEOWAKI plans for everything.
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.
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 don't do profiles and have no social media accounts really. I don't lie and let my words speak for themselves, and I won't get into credentialism games. Even if I filled out a profile what difference would that make since that could all be a lie, too.
Get back to Truth Social. You are needed there.
Never been on it or Twitter or anything similar. Only substack…
It would be a great place for you. Nothing but Trump fellatiation 24-7.
How much military experience do you have, Will?
I don't have to answer to bootlicking righties
So, let me get this straight, you don't introduce yourself as "The oxymoron?" You don't have any special knowledge here? You don't have any institutional knowledge here?
Maybe listen and you might learn something.
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 said, Jeff. So many of these chowderhead appointees can only conceive of serving in their roles as though they were playing the role in a movie. Hegseth's stupid stunt calls to mind Kash Patel's uber-cringey press conference about Kirk's shooter where you can just tell he was trying to hide his boner as he said "We got him," then rambled about Valhalla or some shit. God, what dweebs.
Nearly all appointees are chowder. Clinton was decent at her job, as was Alcoa's CEO (who resigned rather than deal with GWB). Most are merely "worked around." But that's also true of generals, half the time. They exist to get funding, and politick.
I didn't add this part earlier since I was hitting the road. The meeting was unusual but not too farout of the norm. The big difference is televising it. Normally this sort of thing is kept "in the family". Nonetheless, I'm guessing there are two reasons.
Firstly, he is not just telling leadership, but also all uniformed members (and also DOD civilians) that the change is driven from top down and everyone gets same message. I have seen this done where a mass email goes out with links to a talk on DOD-wide website for all to access. However, most people including myself, normally don't watch them. By doing it publicly it gets news and is more likely to get the average person (especially civilians) to watch and get the message. This was the annual SHARP or Ethics training type of thing.
The second reason is to force an accountability upon himself and his staff. It's easy to make pronouncements and 2 years later very little has been done. Seen this time and again. By doing this so publicly it means more likely folks will hold accountable to some degree.
Finally, there probably is some politics going on, but it did not seem that was even in top 3-4 reasons for doing it.
Allow a different reason? Perhaps there was some sort of "smaller meeting" happening under the cover of the "big meeting"? Maybe more than one? You can distribute "secret orders" more securely in person. Maybe "in case of chinese attack, do xyz."
You're televising it for the "Born Fighting" audience. This is Hegseth's version of "Please no draft, don't make us draft you, come back Right Now!"
And yes, he's serious about That Message.
Is it a bit of a spectacle? Yep. That's how he gets Lyle in WV to tune in.
If Hegseth thought it wise to deliver the message face to face, he should have gone to them. The SecDef doing a personal tour of, say, 50 major military bases around the world would have demonstrated real leadership, shown respect for his employees, given him a chance to take the measure of the troops, and avoided humiliating his boss -- all while saving a ton of time and money.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
Oh, Richard. Learn more at JocelynRDavis.com 😉
To be blunt you know fuckall about military and the lecture he gave does not fit in with your as shown on you website.
You've convinced me.
I'm out of sync with CONUS time zones, so late to this conversation. I agree with huge swaths of what you're saying except this:
"So I suggest that on things like this you stay out of it. You interprit it as showing off, and you are wrong."
I want people who don't understand the culture to weigh in. Even if people are misunderstanding the context and the motivations, it helps bridge the gap between civilian and military life to have these conversations in the open.
Almost all of my friends are or were in the service. It's good to be reminded of the perspective on the outside.
I would normally agree but folks have persisted in not getting it despite many who have tried to correct them. Even had one lady refer me to her motivational speaking class on the correct way to do this sort of thing. So yes, I've been a bit short. A command structure completely goes over their head - like explaining snow to Amazonian tribes (something I have related experience with).
I poked around on her website. Hello, JocelynRDavis.
Ain't no fucking way 19-year-olds are taking an airstrip while someone quotes Shakespeare to them, even if it is Henry V.
I truly don't mind people enjoying the stuff that she apparently enjoys - go for it! - but you have to understand the limits of one field as applied to another. I would not suggest the Duffel Blog qualifies a person for a seat on the MoMA board. I would not suggest handing out Motrin qualifies a corpsman for a medical license in the Democratic People's Republic of Won't-Be-Found-On-Maps-in-2100-istan. I would not suggest the DFAC offerings qualify as food.
I would - I do - suggest that going from COCOM to COCOM and relaying the same talking point will not have the same impact as doing it the way he did. Oh - and he already does travel the world to visit leadership, anyway. For him, the method of delivery was just as important as the words he actually said.
100% agree.
BTW, the Jeff Maurer guy posted two more notes with same attitude on Hegseth talk despite me and others trying to reason with him. Either he ignores his own tagline and is too full of himself or he posts to stir things up or he really is just stupid.
Hegseth is a clown and a cheat. Perhaps Jeff talk your comments under advisement and rejected them as absurd.
I'm a subscriber of his. He's generally quite funny and irreverent. This one, though, was off the mark in its understanding of what was actually happening. Some things you have to experience to understand, military culture being one of them, and our norms really don't translate well.
Sorry, it's our money. We reserve the right to comment.
Also, if Hegseth did it by email, he might have fucked it up, as he did with the Signal chat.
I regret that I have but one like to give, Colonel.
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.
Yeah but the time much more than the money.
You're assuming generals aren't reading classified briefs on the plane? I mean, seriously, it's two hours. And two hours with the Boss articulating "where I think our strategic objectives are these days" (even if that's "stop being so fat, the weight loss program is back in force.) is a HELL of a lot better than two hours spent discussing "what your pronouns are" (and yes, I know a military guy who did that for two hours, instead of counting dead Russians).
We expect our military to sleep on the floor, and like it. They can sleep on the plane too.
Well more than 800 people flew there. Each of those GO/FOs has an ADC, many of them travel with personal security and comms teams, etc. Price-wise, however, these people already have enormous travel budgets. This will likely be marginal from a dollar perspective.
The military is a high-context society. SEC Hegseth understands it well enough to fully understand what meeting he called.
It would be a big deal for any given command for its singular commanding officer to be told to drop everything and come to DC on short notice.
The meeting was the administration's announcement that there is a new sheriff in town.
Yeah, that's called a "why the F do we have 800 generals?!"
It's a big signal to the Rest of America that the military has noticed it has too many people in high command.
Remember the military operates on "get promoted or decommissioned?" It means we call a lot of people generals who probably ought to be lower ranked.
Maybe it’s a thing in military culture but in what way except the required attendees was it a military meeting?
Ok, they prefer in person for informational meetings. This meeting did not have information.
"we are reinstituting the weight loss protocols that were suspended under covid19" -- this seems like at least part of the information. Or is this somehow not informative?
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.
Ya so? They won't be doing "police work" without using the insurrection act. And you don't want freakin-military doing police work. "Covering fire" means something different to the armed forces than it does to humans who watch television, who interpret "cover me" as "hold your fire, but be prepared to shoot." (This is a real life example from the LA riots, and milint will cite it to Trump on a "you don't want to do that.")
This is why it was a stupid idea to call in the national guard for Jan 6th. You don't put people whose general action plan for "there's a shooter in an enclosed space with only one exist" is "toss in a grenade and move on" into the US capital, unless you absolutely can't call in police (and yeah, they coulda called in the DC cops, who have training in "how to deal with hostages").
This show was put on for gullible suckers.
Pete Hesgeth lecturing the military on discipline is like Aella lecturing the Amish on promiscuity.
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.
This whole administration is just performative nonsense. Since the Democrats’ popularity is now less than oat milk, they still need to rage at some machine. And produce content. This is the reality internet president and his toadies. Hence, call in the generals! Get the press here! I doubt he earned any respect by playing GI Joe for a bunch of military lifers. It was for his boss.
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.
Of course I believe in civilian leadership of the military but most civilian leaders have the good sense to not lecture generals on how to be a "warrior".
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?
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."
Mr Mauer is just wrong on the substance of this post, however successful or not his comedic japes may have been. Secretary Hegseth was sharing information on an important (and in my view necessary) change in policy and standards. No successful boss could ever do that with an email from HR.
"Scratching my cheek while giving you the finger" hey I'll have to try that!
Save me some bruises.....
Hahahahaha. Jeff, you just keep slaying.
Outrage at the SECDEF for doing things the military frequently has always done, albeit at scale.
Great humor, my man.
Tell me again why he should act more like the EPA.
More email! Let’s gooooo!
No SECDEF has ever done this before, or anything similar for so little of a reason
“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.
Yeah, most people who served will say that generals ain't really military, they're politicians. This includes the folks getting promoted for being too insubordinate.
Mr. Maurer has noticed that he cannot explain a meeting using the current variables of "rational governance." Therefore, he mocks the meeting, instead of asking himself, "Okay, what can the CoC get done while everyone is theoretically in town for a meeting?"
Turns out? Rather a lot. It also says the normal CoC is probably compromised...