Pete Hegseth, Moral Failure, and the Erosion of Military Legitimacy
IN EARLY 2008, WHILE COMMANDING a divisional task force in northern Iraq, I found myself on a dusty outpost in Nineveh province waiting for an old friend and one of my “bosses” – then Lt. Gen. Marty Dempsey – to descend from a helicopter. He and I had served together in Baghdad in 2003-2004, but he had just become acting commander of U.S. Central Command after the resignation of Admiral Fox Fallon. He made it a point to join units across the theater, but within minutes of stepping off the helicopter and returning my salute, it was clear he had matters beyond Iraq on his mind. He took me aside and told me that he was going to be appointed to take charge of the Army’s training and doctrine command.
He told me he was going to ask the Army to make me his deputy and that he wanted me to oversee a review and reform of Army basic training. “We need to focus on standards and discipline,” he told me, “and we need to restore our values. We’ve been at war for a long time, our soldiers are tired, and we’re losing our moral sense. And it shows.”
He wasn’t wrong. When we served together in Baghdad a few years earlier, the abuses committed at Abu Ghraib by another unit made headlines around the world. The damage caused by a handful of soldiers was of strategic magnitude because it tarnished the American military’s claims to the moral high ground.
In the years since this terrible episode, we have faced a series of additional painful and corrosive violations of our professional ethics. One of these was the infamous “Black Hearts” case involving soldiers of Bravo Company, 1/502nd Infantry, 101st Airborne Division, operating in the “Triangle of Death” south of Baghdad. The book of the same name describes how the breakdown of leadership, cohesion and moral sense of several soldiers resulted in the rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the murder of her family. In addition to the perpetrators, who were found guilty of their crimes by military or civilian courts, leaders at multiple levels were removed or reprimanded, and senior commanders had to confront the deeper climate failures that enabled such a catastrophe.
The incident showed how ethical failure within a unit is rarely sudden. It’s cumulative. It increases when leaders fail to spot the warning signs, when exhaustion weakens judgment, when a small number of individuals lack moral foundation – and when institutions turn away from or become detached from their values.
During my time at the new Initial Military Training Command, we rewrote our basic training programs with the help of expert combat drill sergeants. We have strengthened the standards for drill sergeants. We built character and ethical reasoning into recruits, as well as their marksmanship and first aid training. We emphasized that discipline is good judgment under pressure, and that moral understanding is what keeps the young soldier of a democratic nation on his feet when chaos, uncertainty, and danger approach.
THE Rampart The community is based on values: we are pro-democracy, against authoritarianism and we are committed to telling each other what we really think. Join us.
THOSE YEARS TEACHED ME A TRUTH that I’ve held onto ever since: Leaders are shaped by their experiences – and some experiences strengthen your respect for norms, while others distort it.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth frequently cites two moments from his experience in Iraq to shape his worldview on military justice and rules of engagement. The first is a 2005 rules of engagement briefing by a JAG officer that he attended and which he repeatedly described as excessively restrictive – and, in his view, dangerous. The second is the “Tharthar Island” incident in May 2006, during which several detainees were killed after being captured. Three soldiers from Hegseth’s former unit were later convicted and the brigade commander received a formal reprimand for toxic leadership and command climate failures.
All these events sparked deep professional debates within the army of the time. For commanders across Iraq and those preparing to go into combat, these cases highlighted that a leader, even simply through the climate of his command, communicates to his unit the limits of lawful actions – and that accountability is essential. In the case of Hegseth’s former unit, others viewed the investigations as unfair or too legalistic. Secretary Hegseth’s public statements over the past decade reflect his belief that military legal oversight constrains warfighters, that investigations burden troops, and that commanders should be freer – rather than more disciplined – in the use of force.
Hegseth seems to sincerely share these opinions. But sincerity is not synonymous with good judgment. Nor does it excuse decisions that could put the force and the nation in moral danger.
Share
THE WASHINGTON POSTTHE RECENT UN INVESTIGATION into US operations in the Caribbean reveals a situation far removed from the crushing chaos of pre-surge Iraq and far more ripe for choice, direction and accountability. According to the JobHegseth reportedly urged U.S. military personnel to conduct a second strike against a small boat off the coast of Nicaragua, even after the initial strike disabled it and left two injured survivors clinging to the wreckage.
Naval officers on site reportedly deemed a second strike unnecessary, potentially illegal and incompatible with the mission. Yet the Job reports that senior civilian officials, including Secretary Hegseth, insisted they “kill everyone.”
If the Job the report is correct, this situation is serious. This suggests that a senior civilian leader urged action that would violate the law of armed conflict, basic proportionality, and the United States’ long-standing commitment to minimizing harm to the defenseless. And this traps the military – who must refuse illegal orders – between legal obligation, moral conscience and pressure from civilian authorities.
Under the law of armed conflict, an injured person clinging to debris is classified as “out of action“-translating “outside combat,” protected by the Geneva Conventions. Deliberately targeting such an individual is not a tactical decision. It is a potential war crime. And if a senior official urged such a strike, then we are morally obligated to ask the most serious questions a democracy can ask: Were illegal orders issued or implied? Did the military feel pressured to act illegally? Were there attempts to suppress or modification of reporting? What guidance was provided and by whom?
These are not partisan issues. These are constitutional measures.
Last week’s debate over illegal orders, sparked after six members of Congress reminded troops of their duty to refuse them, is not about politics, but about the oath. Every soldier learns in the first week of basic training that the Constitution surpasses any individual. And they learn early and often that their duty includes refusing illegal orders, even from superior officers, even from civilian officials. This is one of the main differences between a professional army and an armed faction of lawless thugs.
From all this, I remember the advice I received in 2008 from a future boss: after long periods of war or political tensions, the greatest danger is not the enemy. It is the erosion of the values that distinguish the American military from the armed groups it faces.
When senior leaders denigrate legal oversight, sideline JAG officers, hinder the press’s ability to report, or treat accountability like the enemy, they do more than risk illegal actions. They weaken the moral foundation that makes our military credible to the American people and the world. Because an army that abandons its legal and ethical foundations does not protect a nation: it endangers it. A military that trades the Constitution for personal loyalty ceases to be American. And a military that fails to investigate serious allegations of illegal conduct faces tragedy – strategic, moral and human.
Given the JobGiven the reporting and the issues involved, the logical next step is an immediate bipartisan investigation. As commander, I would expect and welcome such an investigation, because the moral legitimacy of the force and the reputation of the institution are at stake. And if illegal orders were issued – or if military personnel were pressured to violate the laws of war – then criminal liability must be considered for all those involved, regardless of their civilian position or military rank. The American people can accept honest mistakes. They can accept judgments due to the fog of war. What we should not accept as a nation is moral drift at the top of the chain of command.
Share
