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

27 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
  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
  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
  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

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