Pages

Wednesday, October 1, 2025

The Meeting, The Message

SecDef (SecWar?) Hegseth has delivered his speech to the assembled leadership of the US military and it was one of the best speeches I’ve heard/read in a very long time.  As reported and summarized by Redstate website[1], here are some excerpts on various topics:
 

Leadership
 
For too long we've promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons. Based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic, so-called firsts. We've pretended that combat arms and non-combat arms are the same thing. … Promoting risk-adverse, go-along-to-get-along conformists instead. …  Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading and we lost our way. We became, The Woke Department …

Ideology
 
No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction or gender delusions. No more debris. As I have said before, and will say again, we are done with that sh*t.

Fitness
 
… either you are disciplined, fit, and trained, or you are out.  … each service will ensure that every requirement for every combat MOS, for every designated combat arms position, returns to the highest Male Standard only.
 
… it's completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world.
 
… if you do not meet the male level, physical standards for combat positions or cannot pass a PT test or don't want to shave and look professional, it's time for a new position. Or a new profession.

Appearance
 
… grooming standards. No more beards, long hair, superficial individual expression. We're going to cut our hair, shave our beards, and adhere to standards.

Toxic Leadership
 
Upholding and demanding high standards is not toxic. Enforcing high standards, [is] not toxic leadership. Leading war fighters toward the goals of high, gender neutral, and uncompromising standards in order to forge a cohesive, formidable, and lethal Deparatment of War is not toxic.    Real toxic leadership is endangering subordinates with low standards. Real toxic leadership is promoting people based on immutable characteristics, or quotas instead of based on merit. Real toxic leadership is promoting destructive ideologies.    The definition of toxic has been turned upside-down, and we're correcting that. That's why today, at my direction, we're undertaking a full review of the Department's definitions of so-called "toxic leadership," bullying, and hazing. To empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retritibution or second-guessing.    words like "bullying" and "hazing" and "toxic" — they've been weaponized and bastardized inside our formations, undercutting commanders and NCOs.

Females
 
… when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral. If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result, so be it. It will also mean that weak men won't qualify, because we're not playing games.

Oversight and Legal Intimidation
 
We are overhauling an Inspector General process, the IG, that has been weaponized. Putting complainers, ideologues, and poor performers in the driver's seat. We're doing the same with the equal opportunity and military equal opportunity polices — the EO and MEO at our department. No more frivolous complaints. No more anonymous complaints, no more repeat complaintants, no more smearing reputations. No more endless waiting. No more legal limbo. No more sidetracking careers. No more walking on eggshells.

Firing
 
… if the words I'm speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign.    But, I suspect, I know, the overwhelming majority of you feel the opposite.

 
Discussion
 
There was only one thing in SecDef’s remarks that I disagree with and that is his rosy view of the viewpoints of those in attendance.  If he truly believes that the overwhelming majority of senior leadership really feels as he does then he is delusional.  We have seen for the last several years exactly how the majority of senior leadership feels and it is largely in line with the liberal agenda.  Those liberal leaning officers have been systematically selecting other liberal leaning officers for promotion resulting in a thoroughly infested officer corps.  They are not going to suddenly change their mindsets because of a single speech from an administration that is limited to a single term.  They may cover their tracks, now, but they’re going to resist at every opportunity.  Wholesale firing of the senior leadership is the only solution.
 
That aside, I agree with everything else.  However, this is only talk.  Hegseth has yet to demonstrate much in the way of concrete actions to back up the talk.  Indeed, his inactions have already repudiated much of what he says.  He has failed to engage in wholesale firings for all the infractions and failings he cites in his speech and which have been blatantly evident for years.  What is he waiting for?  He’s been in office for several months, now.  He’s had more than ample opportunity to actually implement the various points he discusses.  Talk but no walk.  At the end of this year will we still be waiting to see some evidence of action or will I be writing an apology post to SecDef?  I hope it’s the latter but color me skeptical.  We’ll see.
 
 
 
________________________________
 
[1] Redstate website, “Pete Hegseth Sets Directives and the New Direction for the Department of War”, Jennifer O’Connell, 30-Sep-2025,
https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2025/09/30/war-secretary-pete-hegseth-sets-10-directives-and-a-new-direction-for-the-department-of-war-n2194564

48 comments:

  1. What about “I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sweet, I like it.We got plenty of hellhole cities to train in. Perfect for MOUT and COIN training, active and reserve.

      Delete
    2. "plenty of hellhole cities to train in. Perfect for MOUT and COIN training"

      I get that you're making a flippant comment but there is a kernel of truth and applicability there. Some aspects of urban combat could be validly exercised such as intel collection, small unit movement and coordination, target identification, etc.

      Delete
  2. Trump spoke longer than Hegseth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does that mean something? The President is, after all, the Commander in Chief. Why wouldn't he take advantage of the opportunity to talk to the leadership of the entire US military?

      Delete
  3. Yep, there has been a lot of malicious compliance like removing Tuskegee Airmen or WASP history from websites when told to eliminate DEI or woke stuff. Those people need to be fired. Speaking of standards, standards should be enforced across our procurement system. Waste of money to have each service have its own camo uniforms or the Marines and Army using different tactical trucks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As part of his speech, Trump also went on about battleships. The way I hear and read this it would be new gun-armed and armored ships, not reactivating the Iowas they way the article implies.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-considering-bringing-back-us-navy-battleships-2025-9

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8moMGUel0M

    Long Time Anonymous Lurker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump throws out lots of wacky ideas when he speaks. Very little of it is serious - like Canada as the 51st state, for example. People need to understand this about Trump and take it with a grain of salt and a sense of humor.

      Delete
    2. Scene: Oval Office, a week after expending so many missiles against the Houthis a munitions report was forwarded all the way up to the Presidents desk.

      "You know Sir, if we had a Des Moines class cruiser or Iowa class battleship, or a modern equivalent, available.... we would have expended a lot less of our missile inventory against the Houthis." said the young staffer who reads Navy Matters blog.

      Looking For NSFS

      Delete
  5. "I suppose there should be no surprise"

    Comment deleted for personal attacks. If you'd care to repost in a more polite manner, I'd be happy to point out the many fundamental flaws in your line of thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies, it was certainly not meant as a personal attack.

      My critique stands on whether the effectiveness of the navy (excluding the rest of the forces as that is not the intent of the blog) increases by just substituting the shibboleths of a certain leaning with shibboleths of the another the main merit of which is being the opposite.

      I think it would be interesting to see the analyses for:
      "- male level, physical standards for combat positions or cannot pass a PT test or don't want to shave and look professional" & " grooming standards. No more beards, long hair, superficial individual expression. We're going to cut our hair, shave our beards, and adhere to standards"

      While the above are worthy for combat roles etc sure, how do these (welcome to many I'm sure) changes for combat roles make the Navy more effective in an age where pressing issues for the Navy include procurement, design or dare I say concept of operations for force structure and ship & weapon design, build and strategic planning? How do they help maintenance and readiness of ships which includes, beyond combat roles, important functions like maintenance of nuclear submarines, radar systems, electronics? I'm sure combat roles for the Navy would include say highly qualified sonar technicians over navy corpsman holding a rifle and I don't get how being able to do a few more push ups improves the former.

      I do not see the correlation to a more effective or even lethal navy: 'largely in line with the liberal agenda. Those liberal leaning officers have been systematically selecting other liberal leaning officers for promotion resulting in a thoroughly infested officer corps'

      I do not know of any objective data that the political leanings of the people in a force has on effectiveness or lethality. Before we purge the force of Americans with certain political leanings, we should at least have justification based on real measures? Would a US Navy or Military purged of people that comprise about half of Americans (because their political leaning are opposed to the author or current WarSec, Admin etc) an effective force?

      While I find the your analyses on operations, naval equipment, tactics, naval strategy and force structure illuminating, thoughtful and very grounded (and backed by objective data or measures), the blog when it moves into the realm of culture (as applied to the navy or broader armed forces) seems weak and open to the same critique that is applied to the leadership/current culture as decried. Which is why it seems no different with the exception of coming in from the reactionary side.

      Delete
    2. Before spending any time explaining the flaws in your ideas, there is one supremely important question that must be answered. Are you interested in an actual discussion and learning something or is this a dead end?

      Delete
    3. Of course. I see this no different than a debate on the merits of say one weapon system against another or critiquing the investment of CVNs over SSNs or a debate on the force structure of the Marine division etc Except this is an analyses/debate on merits of aspects of culture/approach as applied to navy (or armed forces percolating down), but still should be subject to the same level of rigor and scrutiny of analyses.

      Delete
    4. "should be subject to the same level of rigor and scrutiny of analyses."

      Okay, then why don't you start the analysis by answering some of the basic questions such as what is the purpose of grooming standards within an organization? Or, given this age of terrorism where attack and disaster can strike anywhere and at any time, is there such a thing as an assured non-combatant (this relates, of course, to physical fitness standards, combat proficiency, etc.). Be sure to address the patently obvious correlation between the rise of liberalism within the military and the decrease in maintenance, readiness, and training.

      In other words, go ahead and start the conversation by addressing the obvious potential flaws and gaps in your reasoning that one might be apt to point out.

      Delete
    5. Sure I'll go ahead and start.

      I have no bones with grooming standards at all, never said we shouldn't. I'm challenging the assumption that 'modern' (or call it looser) grooming standards had anything to do with issues plaguing the navy. The navy tech. maintaining a reactor or radar operator with a beard is not less capable or competent because of the beard. As you so astutely point out, attack and disaster can strike anywhere. Case in point the Oct. 7 attacks where the IDF was caught off guard and it wasn't because the IDF standards has fewer pull-ups. Modern conflicts and disasters requires much more than a single minded focus on certain physical stnds. Another case in point being the successful drone/missile operation conducted by Ukraine including the naval ones. It is not because the drone operators adhere to some strict physical std. that their operation has been lethal and effective. To critique the focus on stnd another example is the service of female naval aviators (combat role) in our service and they are undoubtedly brave and qualified and absolutely giving their for the nation. There is no data to suggest they have been less competent or capable. Some might think their even being allowed to be pilots was woke/dei etc etc whatever but would want to see any objective data showing they were less capable because current stnds allowed them to become pilots. All this points to these grooming/physical std. as not something that is the root-cause of problems plaguing the navy. My critique is not at all on having a standard, but using it in a way to exclude which does not improve lethality or effectiveness of the armed forces.

      On the issue of 'patently obvious correlation between the rise of liberalism within the military and the decrease in maintenance, readiness, and training'. With all due respect and politeness, maybe patently obvious to you but not to me. The US armed forces has always had a mix of leanings for as long as it has been (officer corp, general etc) and so has the nation. The issue or readiness, effectiveness etc today is structural and far more complex than the leaning of the personnel who make up the ranks. Officers planning an air-strike operation or deployment don't let their leaning impact the planning. The political aspects come at the decision stage i.e. civilian leadership which absolutely should be political constitutionally. I mean sure maybe one's leaning comes into play when the armed forces an occupying force - granted but that is a separate debate and related to the effectiveness of the armed forces.

      I mean we might as well order everyone to stop saying 'armed services' as the word service is submissive, servile and weak and demand everyone use 'armed force' as the word force is tough, aggressive and consistent with the warfighting mentality and that will do grand total of absolutely nothing to improve. All of this (as a start) is challenging the notion that these feel good shibboleths of the opposite type are going to address any of the issues. Which makes them no different from the shibboleths they are replacing.

      Delete
    6. It is obvious from your first paragraph that you do not understand the intended purpose of appearance or physical standards (or, indeed, standards, in general!). You cannot intelligently debate or question standards until you understand their purpose. Grasp the purpose and then reexamine your doubts.

      Delete
    7. Not sure what in the first paragraph gives that impression. There is no argument on standards. We already have standards. The debate/analyses is whether standard X is better than Y and if existing standards are cause for issues with readiness/maintenance/lethality etc Why will the imposition of a standard Y by WarSec fix the issues by excluding personnel who meet existing standard X and provide value to the service.

      Delete
    8. The very fact that you question the usefulness of standards demonstrates that you do not understand the purpose they serve. If you understand their purpose you'll also be able to judge whether one set of standards is better or worse than another (or none).

      Delete
    9. Not sure if you’re referring to another comment but nowhere did I question usefulness of standards - just the usefulness of the WarSec’s changes and assumption that current grooming standards for eg are a cause of issues with effectiveness/maintenance etc.

      I did read your comment below on fitness standards and combat roles and my assessment is your view/analyses is flawed and not consistent with history and examples of obviously effective armed forces, but this is a disagreement and we could both provide analyses and objective measures, so I suppose we can agree to disagree. Fortunately for us we will see this play out in front of us over the next 4 years (or maybe even more terms who knows). Will be one of only few possibilities A] WarSec is all talk and this is virtue signaling but from opposite end B] WarSec makes actual changes and 1] effectiveness, readiness etc get even worse 2] or get better. We’ll know soon enough.

      Delete
  6. SecWar is in charge. If you have lead a group and had them all onside you have been fortunate. Or probably never lead......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ?????? Not a clue what you're trying to say. Try again.

      Delete
  7. While I appreciate the desire to have a commander's call to set the tone, I'm not sure this was the right way to do it. Pretty much every major command was leaderless for the duration of travel and the meeting, which could have afforded our adversaries an opportunity.

    Perhaps fortunately, Russia is preoccupied with Ukraine, and China, for now, does not yet appear ready or willing to throw down with us - because they're still building up their fleet to the force size they need for the inevitable war with us.

    We need to be seriously doing the same, building up our Navy and rejuvenating our shipyards. One Burke a year isn't going to cut it when China launches multiple corvettes, frigates and DDGs per year, and has greater shipbuilding capacity than we do, which means they are better positioned to regenerate their strength after a conflict.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. good article in CIMSEC today " Start building small warships". click on links in the article for info on CONOPS and vessel descriptions.

      Delete
    2. "Pretty much every major command was leaderless for the duration of travel and the meeting, which could have afforded our adversaries an opportunity."

      If you study the history of warfare, you recognize that no war can start instantaneously. There is ALWAYS a prolonged run up to war. As you noted, neither Russia nor China was in any position or had any desire to instantaneously start a war. Therefore, your concern about commands being leaderless was completely unfounded.

      Further, one of the foundational principles of military organization is that there is always the next person in line, ready to step in and assume command. If we assume that the current leaders are as competent as your fear suggests then they have made certain that their next in command is perfectly ready to assume command. Therefore, your fear was unfounded.

      Finally, it is the very same current commanders you worry about being absent who have led the US military into historically poor readiness, training, and maintenance. Thus, their absence can only be considered a positive. Therefore, your fear was unfounded.

      Beyond that, yes, we all understand that current shipbuilding is inadequate as is maintenance, training, readiness, and weapon inventories.

      Delete
    3. "Start building small warships"

      This appears to just be a warmed over continuation of the Hughes model which has been pretty thoroughly discredited. Was there some specific aspect you thought worthy of discussion?

      Delete
    4. Just happy to see at least someone is thinking in terms of more simple, cheaper and quantity of ships. Don't really care for the ship design or CONOPS, but at least someone is thinking something different than unmanned all the time.

      Delete
    5. You don't care for the CONOPS but you like small ships? Without a viable CONOPS how do you know whether the ships will prove useful? The LCS was designed as the small ship relative to the Burke but because it never had a viable CONOPS it was a total failure. The Jeffersonian gunboats were small ships that were built without a viable CONOPS and were unmitigated disasters. The Mk 6 patrol boats were small vessels that were built without a CONOPS and were quickly retired. And so on. How can you like a small ship without thinking it has a viable CONOPS?

      Delete
    6. This week, in an interview, Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll said:

      “Chinese people may be very skilled in technology, but this will lead them to overly rely on the technology. When the war really reaches a decisive battle on the ground, our soldiers and commanders will rely on their own qualities and decision-making abilities to achieve every victory."

      https://x.com/mengyan1234567/status/1972315857599787417

      I don't entirely buy his idea. Today, it is technologies dominate battle fields. It is worrisome that China has so many high tech weapons that the nation doesn't have. Commander in chief, SOW, AS, ... can talk what generals should be but without high tech weapons, the nation cannot win.

      Delete
  8. There are 2 ways to look at SecWar speech 1) back to basics, as it will build a solid foundation for the more complex tasks ie. Conops, shipbuilding ... etc. 2) back to basics, as it is the only thing I'm capable of doing - since it's at the level of a company commander. Which is it ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not getting your second point. What are you trying to say?

      That aside, the purpose of the speech was, clearly, to move the US military back to a focus on war and nothing else. Prepare for war, do nothing that doesn't contribute to the preparation for war, and abandon all distractions from the preparation for war. In short: FOCUS on war. I don't see any other way to interpret the speech. In fact, there is no interpretation needed. The speech was pretty self-explanatory.

      Delete
    2. well is it talk before walk, or is SecDef only capable of talk ?

      Delete
    3. Um ... ... ... ah ... ... that was the exact question posed in the post.

      Delete
  9. There is a lot to like in the renewed focus on warfighting and call for higher standards. I do have one question and one concern:

    Question - Are the universal higher physical fitness standards the right call?

    Of course it would be better if everyone was fitter. It wouldn't hurt to require more PT across the board. And in some combat roles there can be no compromise on standards without risking lives - higher standards would be a clear improvement here.

    But universal higher physical standards may not lead to the most capable organization. It would have eliminated Schwartzkopf, a fat general who performed extremely well in Desert Storm. It will remove other competent professionals. (Ukraine has been very effective integrating the old, the fat and the weak into a capable army. Israel also finds ways to include a broad swath of its population effectively.) And removing people would still be fine if we had better alternatives, but we are struggling to meet recruiting targets with the current standards. Increasing physical standards may end up with a fitter, less capable (intelligent?) organization.

    I guess the counterargument is a fitter, less-woke military will attract more recruits. Fingers crossed!

    Concern - The military being deployed against the enemy "within."

    What happened to the focus on warfighting? A military focused on maximizing firepower to win fights overwhelmingly is not a military well suited to American cities. The military should kill people and break things in the pursuit of protecting Americans. Attempting to mix civilian law enforcement into this is a recipe for disaster. That's why its prohibition (with a few exceptions) was written into law in the Posse Comitatus Act.

    "Last month, I signed an executive order to provide training for quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances. This is gonna be a big thing for the people in this room, because it's the enemy from within and we have to handle it before it gets out of control." This should be hugely concerning for any American.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "in some combat roles there can be no compromise on standards without risking lives"

      If you could magically guarantee that certain people would never see combat or any physically demanding situation then, perhaps, reduced fitness standards might make sense (they wouldn't but we'll set that aside). However, in a world where terrorists, disgruntled soldiers or civilians with a gun, or natural disasters can strike anywhere, any time, there's no such thing as a guaranteed non-combat position. For example, the people in the Pentagon on 9/11 probably thought they were safe ... until they weren't. The sailors on the Cole, McCain, Fitzgerald and other ships probably thought they were well away from any combat zone ... until disaster struck. A fire in any location anywhere in the world can instantly turn everyone into lifesavers and rescuers. And so on. As the Marines used to say, 'every man a rifleman'. When you join the military, you are a combat soldier/sailor even if you job of the moment may not be on the front line. When war comes and we suddenly need to surge all the rear echelon to the front, what do we do with all the people who have not been held to the fitness standards?

      Fitness standards, by the way, are still to be age-normed, as I understand it.

      "not a military well suited to American cities"

      We're not going to debate the legal or political aspects of this. What I will say is that the military is devoting a microscopically small fraction of its manpower to this effort so it's not as if the focus of the military is being diverted. In addition, the military is NOT being used in a law enforcement role. They have no arrest authority and are not being asked to do so. They are being used as a visible deterrent and, in a worse case scenario, if it were to happen, to protect US citizens and law enforcement personnel. Finally, the military includes reserve and National Guard and the use of National Guard, in particular, is quite common in emergencies and one can make a very valid case that riots, takeovers of cities by functionally terrorist groups, out of control crime, etc. do constitute emergencies. Trump's proposed "quick reaction force", for example, would consist of the National Guard whose responsibilities explicitly include responding to emergencies so such a quick reaction National Guard force seems appropriate to their mission and legal. In any event, it is obvious that the hysterical 'the military is taking over our cities' rant is pure garbage. Be concerned but be informed and objective.

      Delete
    2. "However, in a world where terrorists, disgruntled soldiers or civilians with a gun, or natural disasters can strike anywhere, any time, there's no such thing as a guaranteed non-combat position."

      This is quite true. My son was held, powerless to be involved, just outside the gate of Ft Stewart ( while my daughter in law and grandkids were in lockdown, hiding in a closet just blocks away) recently during the on-base shooter incident. The fact that a major army base was largely reliant on local police raises a LOT of questions, most of which have unsatisfactory answers...
      So while yes, at some base constitutional level, the use of the military in a civilian environment is somthing to be wary of, it's also not the democracy-threatening crisis that certain groups are making it out to be. The fact that I live just minutes from Portland, OR, and have witnessed a years-long breakdown in law and order that's long overdue for some kind of intervention, colors my opinion significantly. I don't want to cross the line and make this political, but, at this point, I have to say that if state and local govts refuse to uphold the law and make it safe for the population, then I welcome federal intervention. And if that appears wearing uniforms, so be it.

      Delete
    3. "I welcome federal intervention. And if that appears wearing uniforms, so be it."

      The key point that opponents of military involvement in law enforcement fail to acknowledge is that the military is NOT being granted arrest authority. They are NOT law enforcement. They are being used as a visible deterrent - nothing more.

      Further, most involvement, as far as I'm aware, has been by National Guard which DOES have a responsibility to respond to emergencies and disasters. If some of our lawless cities whose government has broken down do not constitute emergencies and disaster then I don't know what does!

      Delete
    4. Honestly, given the corruption and the abyssmal level of skill and training in local police forces, being occupied by the Army can only be a net positive for the residents of many american cities.

      All a cop needs to legally kill you is to say he feared for his life.

      Meanwhile, the ROE in occupied Iraq at the height of the GWOT had multiple step on the escalation ladder that you were supposed to go through before you escalated to lethal force.

      Which does beg the question: if the ROE and threshold for lethal force is so low for cops, why the hell haven't they cleaned out our cities yet?

      Delete
    5. "All a cop needs to legally kill you is to say he feared for his life."

      It is evident that you are not a police officer, have no close contact with the police on this matter, and have never had any self-defense gun training where they cover the requirements for the use of deadly force - requirements that police are just as subject to in addition to departmental requirements and any applicable legal requirements.

      Before you make such a comment again, please do your homework.

      "why the hell haven't they cleaned out our cities yet?"

      That's a political question we'll leave for other blogs.

      Delete
  10. ‘Color me skeptical.’
    I think you’re on the money there.
    Reports cited a total absence of applause during Hegseth’s speech, with no one laughing at the President’s jokes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think applause or laughter is a valid measure of acceptance. In that setting, a commander essentially issuing orders to his troops, I would not expect applause or laughter, just strict attention to the words.

      Delete
    2. I agree... while people can nitpick the details such as grooming standards, the overall theme of a more fit and professional military is spot-on.

      Delete
    3. "people can nitpick the details such as grooming standards"

      Too many people fail, yourself included (I say gently), fail to understand the purpose of grooming standards and, therefore, fail to understand why establishment and enforcement of such standards is not a minor, nitpick issue but a major issue that must be insisted on.

      Grooming standards (any standards, actually) exist to establish order and discipline and a subservience to a greater whole as opposed to individual desires and agendas. In a successful military, you MUST subordinate yourself to the greater organization in order to establish an effective chain of command. Grooming standards are, thus, one of the foundations of a successful military. They force the individual to place the group's needs over their own.

      Standards (again, any standards) also ensure fair and equal treatment for all. Nothing will tear a unit apart faster than the perception of preferential treatment for particular individuals or groups. This is why females still struggle to gain respect. They are being treated preferentially. I (and you and everyone else) will have no respect for someone who receives preferential treatment compared to yourself.

      And, of course, there are also the hygiene and safety issues (for example, a soldier with a beard cannot ensure a seal with a gas mask that requires a facial seal) and whatnot, especially in the field but that's not the primary concern.

      Hopefully, you now see why grooming standards are not a minor, nitpicky issue but are vitally important.

      Delete
    4. I dunno. I’ve laughed at plenty of lame jokes in my time because I didn’t want to embarrass my boss.
      I guess if the President cracked a joke or two it would be kinda disrespectful not to acknowledge him.
      I’m agreeing with you that the speeches maybe didn’t go down as well as Hegseth thought they did.

      Delete
    5. "speeches"

      They weren't speeches. They were marching orders. You don't applaud or laugh when you're being given orders.

      Delete
  11. I seriously doubt that this was not mentioned before but is being brought up now. It's because after the current president and defense minister watched China's 93rd anniversary military parade, they saw that all the generals and commanders leading the formations in those images had normal physiques, which sparked an intent to emulate them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the Navy hasn't been embarrassed-motivated to take action about its rusting hulk ships compared to other navies over the last several years, I don't think seeing a few fit Chinese officers made any difference. No ... this is simply a change in philosophy between the last administration and this one.

      Delete
    2. Excuse me, but is it really a problem if warships are left to rust without maintenance? Is it due to insufficient manpower? Or negligence on the part of the commanding officers? Or is it because it doesn't affect combat effectiveness, so it doesn't matter?

      Delete
    3. "is it really a problem if warships are left to rust without maintenance? "

      They say there's no such thing as a dumb question. They're wrong.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.