Hegseth fuels debate with brash rhetoric on Iran
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is stirring controversy — inside and outside the military — with public comments about the war with Iran that are rife with taunts and talk of retaliation, a stark departure from how his predecessors communicated during wartime.
Briefing reporters on the progress of military operations, Mr. Hegseth repeatedly stated that America would hunt down and kill its adversary without apology, hesitation or mercy. He denounced “stupid rules of engagement,” rejected “politically correct wars,” and criticized Europeans for “clinginess.”[ing] their pearls” in the face of America’s decisive action.
He urged U.S. troops at the heart of operations to “be focused, disciplined, lethal and unbreakable,” while urging them to keep going. “We are no longer defenders. We are warriors, trained to kill the enemy and break their will,” he said. “We are releasing you.”
Why we wrote this
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s statements on the war in Iran are galvanizing his supporters, but critics hear a glorification of violence that goes against the craft of soldiering.
And he chastised journalists, many of whom were hand-picked from conservative media outlets, for asking questions. “Why would we tell you – to you, to the enemy, to anyone – what we will or will not do? » he asked last week, gesticulating, then accusing another of asking a “typical NBC, trick question.”
At a press conference Tuesday morning, Secretary Hegseth was less combative toward the media but maintained an aggressive tone. The United States will not give in, he said, until “the enemy is totally and finally defeated.”
It’s the kind of tough talk that, for supporters, is a source of pride, intended to galvanize the troops and let them know their leaders have their back. But for critics, the tone is childish and glorifies violence. For some soldiers, this appears to be a posture that goes against the profession of professional soldiering.
Reactions to Mr. Hegseth’s rhetoric, particularly on social media forums where American troops exchange gossip and information, range from raised fists to bemusement to the kind of humor adopted by troops throughout the ages.
One American soldier joked after listening to Mr. Hegseth that the United States would undoubtedly attack Cuba imminently in a war it would probably call “Operation Your Mom.”
Historically, defense secretaries have aimed to present U.S. military operations “in an optimistic way, to say that progress is being made,” says David Kieran, an associate professor of history at Columbus State University in Georgia. “But when you get to Secretary Hegseth, the tone is much more, I would say, celebratory.”
While reveling in the spectacle of US military dominance is “very appealing” to some, Dr Kieran adds, it should not “distract attention from the broader strategic and political issues that underlie the decision to wage war or use military power in a way that puts people’s lives at risk”.
David Longstreath/AP/File
Victory Speech and Limited Ranges
Celebrating U.S. military superiority and enemy weakness is nothing new for U.S. defense officials leading the country into conflict. But most have sought to strike a balance between understated professionalism and bluster, reining in displays of enthusiasm.
In 1990, as the Gulf War approached, Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, praised U.S. forces as “well trained, superbly equipped and ready.” The Iraqi army, Cheney added, “will find itself facing an unprecedented adversary.”
When the ground offensive began the following February, General Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of U.S. forces during Operation Desert Storm, launched an attack against Iraqi forces.
“As you know, it is the fourth largest army in the world,” he said. “But after this operation, it will become the second army in Iraq.”
A decade later, in 2003, during the Iraq War, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld praised coalition troops for their “magnificent” progress before turning his attention to Iraqi soldiers.
“The regime’s forces are poorly trained, poorly led and poorly equipped,” he said.
These were blows, but measured ones, consistent with the general tenor of modern defense leaders.
Mr. Hegseth’s rhetoric, by contrast, has been amplified to a degree that many Americans and even soldiers might find it unseemly, the retired brigadier said. Gen. Steven Anderson, who served in the Iraq War.
“He’s interested in macho, brotherly culture. All this tough-guy nonsense – all this talk of murder – undoubtedly appeals to some elements of the military.” But not to others, he adds, and “not to the vast majority of military leaders.”
Senior officers are more accustomed to the soldier’s approach of “walking softly and carrying a big stick,” Mr. Anderson says, and solemnity about the lives sacrificed to defend their country.
“I hate war as only a soldier who has lived through it can – only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity,” said General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who served as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, in a speech to the Canadian Club of Ottawa in 1946, just months after the end of the Second World War.
A recent Punchbowl News poll found that 72% of senior officials on Capitol Hill, including 52% of Republican staff, believe Mr. Hegseth has damaged President Donald Trump’s national security agenda.
A Quinnipiac poll released last week found that the same percentage of registered voters disapprove of how the defense secretary handles his job.
Julia Démarée Nikhinson/AP
A contrast with Cain
Not all Defense departments in the Trump administration echo the combative style of Mr. Hegseth, who last year led the charge to rename the department the War Department.
Before walking reporters through the initial phases of Operation Epic Fury at a Pentagon briefing on March 4, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke about the sacrifice of America’s fallen soldiers.
He expressed his “deep condolences” for the soldiers killed and injured in combat. “These are true examples of what selfless service means,” he said before expressing gratitude to all U.S. personnel who continue to find themselves in harm’s way.
At the same press briefing, Mr. Hegseth chastised members of the media for reporting on the victims, saying they did so to spite President Trump.
“When a few drones fly by or tragic things happen, it makes headlines,” he said. “I understand, the press only wants to make the president look bad.” His comments drew ire from traditional and social media.
The Defense Secretary then returned to how the US military would “wipe out” Iran’s missile and drone facilities and “wipe out” its navy and critical infrastructure.
While distasteful to some, Mr. Hegseth’s enthusiastic enumerations of tactical triumphs could also serve to deflect legitimate questions about the administration’s endgame in the war, or about apparent misfires — such as the deadly missile attack on a girls’ elementary school in Iran, which is under investigation.
“If we focus on what the military can do and how powerful it is, does that distract us from the broader political and strategic questions: why we use military force, or what the purpose of that force is, or what the likely outcome of using that force will be? Dr Kieran said.
For former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the key to resolving these questions was humility.
In a 2011 speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Gates, then secretary of state, said that no one can know “with absolute certainty what the future of war holds. But we do know that it will be extremely complex, unpredictable and – as they say in military academies – ‘unstructured.’
When it comes to the defense establishment’s ability to plan and predict the type of wars the United States will fight next, one thing is clear, Mr. Gates told the cadets: “Since Vietnam, our record has been perfect,” he noted. “We never got it right once.”
