Pete Hegseth, Idea Guy
· The Atlantic
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
Visit moryak.biz for more information.
Pete Hegseth seems to imagine himself as a man of big ideas. Perhaps you’ve worked with someone like that: Every organization has “idea hamsters,” who spin in their wheels and toss out suggestions of wildly varying quality. Sometimes, such folks can be innovators—but more often, their scattershot enthusiasm and admiration of their own creativity result in half-baked proposals that create more work, less productivity, and distractions from the real problems.
Hegseth had a lot of ideas during his State of the Force address to troops at the Marine Corps Base Quantico yesterday, and some of them, at least as a starting point for policies, had merit. Unfortunately, these few moments of sense were lost in a fog of clichés, culture-war resentments, and trademark Hegseth corniness.
The secretary may have a point, for example, that the U.S. military has become top-heavy with generals and admirals. Hegseth is not the first person to notice this: Congress legislates the number of general and flag officers in the military, a cap that was set at 962 for years, until the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, written in Barack Obama’s last year as president, mandated it be 11 percent smaller by the end of 2022. Hegseth wants to reduce that number even more, by 20 percent, ostensibly to reduce the size of the Pentagon’s bureaucracy.
So far, so good. But Hegseth’s message was less about seeking a more streamlined command structure than it was, as he put it, about keeping generals who “heard the message” and firing those who didn’t. (That “message” wasn’t clarified yesterday, but it likely includes classic Hegseth tropes such as “maximum lethality, not tepid legality.”) Hegseth complained that the media—and he complained about the media a lot—called these reductions “a purge,” but he calls them “accountability.”
Exactly what these fired officers did to trigger such “accountability” remains unclear. It’s one thing to get rid of an admiral because his or her office is just some bureaucratic zombie position left over from a previous program or initiative; it’s another to fire someone because the secretary thinks they’re disloyal to him. Unfortunately, Hegseth’s history—his statements, and his often-adolescent temperament—suggest that his efforts to downsize the senior ranks are about politics, not efficiency.
Hegseth also announced that he intends to create a new command dedicated to autonomous warfare. He is right to want to direct more attention to these weapons; the wars in Ukraine and Iran have been bloody lessons in the power of asymmetrical warfare. But he gave no explanation for why these issues require an entire command, or how it might work. All he offered was a cool name—Autowarcom—that makes it sound like it’s meant to fight the Transformers. And for someone who has repeatedly declared himself “in a war of attrition” with the Pentagon’s bureaucracy, the secretary is more than willing to create a new command that would require more senior officers and civilians to staff it. (He also wants to establish an Office of Religious Affairs that reports directly to him; not only would this be more bureaucracy, but the last thing America needs is an office dedicated to religion that reports to a man who has made repeated efforts to imbue the military with his brand of Christian evangelicism.)
Once Hegseth got rolling, the ideas got sillier. He announced Project Meridian, an effort to engage in creative thinking about the military of the future. This is not a new concept; the military regularly works on such issues with various groups, including think tanks, civilian defense firms, and academics.
But then Hegseth announced the three wise men who would lead all this brainstorming about the future of warfare: Elon Musk, Newt Gingrich, and Palmer Luckey. Of the three, Luckey—who co-founded the defense firm Anduril Industries—seems a reasonable choice, but Musk has crackpot ideas on any number of issues, and Gingrich’s big plan for technological advancement when he ran for president in 2012 was to build a moon base. Fortunately, the damage this project could do will be somewhat limited because Hegseth has set a deadline of just 120 days for these men to report back. Then again, if Gingrich, Luckey, and Musk can’t redefine the future of national defense in four months, who can?
It was a day for acronyms and project code names, but the best was FORTRESS America, meaning “Federal Operations for Resilience, Troop Resources, Energy, Supply, and Survivability.” The expensive idea behind this one is that every major military base should be self-sustaining, including producing its own energy—apparently, in case of attack within the United States. You can almost hear the meeting where someone said “Fortress America,” and then a committee had to figure out what the acronym would stand for. (I am reminded of the classic TV show The Man From U.N.C.L.E., whose creators thought “U.N.C.L.E.” sounded cool and then had to find words to fill the letters.)
Speaking of bases, Hegseth would like every governor to come to the Pentagon and pitch him, personally—and maybe even the president!—in a competition to win a brand new military base, a state-of-the-art facility with great housing and lethal capabilities. Does America need such a base? Would this effort draw money and time away from improvements to other military installations? None of that was spelled out, but Hegseth seemed excited about choosing the location in a military version of a reality-TV competition.
And on it went, with Hegseth spinning one bad idea after another, and managing to insult any number of Americans in the process. He did his usual riff of wanting “no fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals” in his macho military. (“The ideological clowns are out,” he said. “The patriotic cowboys are in, with testosterone testing on top.”) He also denigrated the graduates of America’s ROTC programs by implying that today’s universities are producing unreliable and unpatriotic officers. He wants to establish new military programs at six colleges, including Liberty University, Louisiana State University, and Hillsdale College—institutions, according to the secretary, that understand “the faith of Jerusalem,” and the Greco-Roman “pillars of our republic.”
Hegseth could not ignore ongoing problems such as the war in Iran, but rather than presenting a sober-minded and responsible discussion of the challenges to a military at war, the secretary instead leaned into his usual culture-war gripes. He also eagerly sowed division between the U.S. military and the society it serves: He told the assembled troops, repeatedly, that the media and higher education were their enemies, at one point saying that the American media were worse than Iran’s state media. Our press, he said, “intentionally smears the troops and the historic mission that they are undertaking,” actions that are “fundamentally anti-American. It’s sick. It’s a national betrayal. It’s treason.”
Hegseth’s speech proved, yet again, that he is manifestly unfit for his job. America can endure a bloated Pentagon with some generals in make-work jobs. It can stand to trim the waste in expensive programs and root out incompetent bureaucrats. What a democracy cannot—and should not—tolerate is a secretary of defense who trucks in propaganda and wants the people who serve in America’s military to be the armed instrument of his own resentments and biases.
Related: