PDF Summary:The War on Warriors, by Pete Hegseth

In The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth argues that the introduction of progressive ideologies and social justice initiatives within the U.S. armed forces has eroded its core mission, principles, and warrior ethos. Hegseth states that a focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion and critical race theory undermine military readiness, cohesion, and meritocracy while prioritizing political correctness over combat effectiveness.

Hegseth believes the infiltration of "woke" ideals has compromised training standards, career advancement, unit solidarity, battlefield rules of engagement, and the apolitical nature of the military. Hegseth contends these forces threaten the armed forces' ability to protect America against adversaries by weakening its warfighting capabilities.

(continued)...

Furthermore, Hegseth argues that the undue focus on what is labeled as "extremism" diverts critical time and resources away from preparing and equipping for genuine worldwide threats. The mandatory training on extremism curtails the time allocated for crucial field drills and combat readiness activities. The military's efficiency is compromised by an obsession with an imagined foe, shifting its attention away from its primary responsibility to protect the nation from tangible dangers.

Allegations of racial discrimination have led to the introduction of initiatives centered on equity, which have consequently compromised the military's readiness and effectiveness in warfare.

Hegseth argues that claims of racism and discrimination are often used as justifications for implementing policies that, in his view, prioritize social justice at the expense of the armed forces' effectiveness. He cites the directive issued by Mark Esper, who was at the helm of the Defense Department, to remove photographs from promotion and selection procedures, allegedly to address the baseless claims of racial bias influencing career advancement choices. Hegseth argues that these frequent assertions of ethical high ground undermine the core principles that should underpin the military, based on merit, and breed dissatisfaction among those who feel they are unfairly targeted.

Hegseth contends that the fundamental issue lies not in racism per se, but in the progressive political groups' obsession with racial issues. He argues that focusing on racial differences and the belief in widespread systemic racism promotes division, undermining the essential unity and effectiveness of the armed forces. The author argues that the military must focus on skill and outcomes, disregarding considerations based on race or identity.

The military's reputation as a meritocratic institution has been tarnished by the perception that promotions and opportunities are based on demographic representation rather than performance.

Hegseth expresses regret over the harm inflicted upon the military's standing as an institution that values merit, attributing this to an excessive focus on demographic diversity. He argues that there is an increasing perception that opportunities and progress are allocated according to an individual's racial, gender, or sexual identity rather than being earned through true merit, as a result of prioritizing diversity over individual achievements.

Hegseth believes that such a perspective diminishes the spirit and poses an obstacle for young individuals contemplating military service. What would motivate someone to jeopardize their safety for a nation and its institutions that appear to disregard personal achievements and merit, instead favoring a framework that values ticking boxes and concentrates on identity politics? The writer argues that the military's reduced focus on a merit-based system is undermining their power and hindering their ability to recruit and retain the most outstanding and skilled individuals from the United States.

Other Perspectives

• The military, like any large institution, is not immune to societal issues, including racism, and acknowledging this does not necessarily undermine its effectiveness but can be a step towards addressing and rectifying such issues.
• Efforts to counter extremism within the ranks are based on the understanding that the military must uphold the highest standards of conduct and that even a small number of cases can have a disproportionately negative impact on morale and cohesion.
• The focus on diversity and inclusion can be seen as strengthening the military by ensuring it reflects and benefits from the full range of talents and perspectives within the nation it serves.
• Equity initiatives may aim to level the playing field and ensure that all service members have equal opportunities to succeed based on merit, not to replace meritocracy with quotas.
• The perception that promotions are based on demographic representation rather than performance could be a misinterpretation of efforts to ensure that unconscious biases do not hinder the career progression of capable individuals from diverse backgrounds.
• Addressing racial discrimination and promoting equity can coexist with maintaining military readiness and effectiveness; they are not mutually exclusive goals.
• The military's reputation for meritocracy can be enhanced, not tarnished, by transparently addressing issues of racial bias and ensuring that all service members are judged fairly based on their abilities and achievements.
• The recruitment and retention of skilled individuals may be improved by demonstrating a commitment to fairness and inclusion, as these are values that resonate with a diverse and modern society.

It is imperative for our armed forces to focus on achieving success and to rectify the shortcomings present in the current rules of engagement.

The military's operational capabilities have been hindered by outdated and cumbersome regulations that prioritize compliance with global norms over the essential goal of decisively defeating America's enemies.

Hegseth contends that the effectiveness of the armed forces in securing triumphs is undermined by an excessive reliance on outdated and ineffective global agreements, such as the ones akin to those established in Geneva. The writer maintains that while it is important to adhere to certain international laws and ethical norms during warfare, he argues that the current rules provide too much protection to enemies and unduly restrict the ability of Western armed forces to apply force, which does little to deter adversaries who ignore such rules.

Enemies have exploited the American military's adherence to global rules, leading to a tactical setback for U.S. troops.

Hegseth argues that the military's commitment to upholding international laws and the Geneva Conventions is being exploited by opponents who have no intention of following the same codes of conduct. Terrorist groups frequently take advantage of the hesitation among American soldiers to initiate combat in the presence of civilians, such as women and children, by using them as human shields. Hegseth contends that this leads to a perilous circumstance where the strict compliance of American forces to engagement protocols places them at a tactical disadvantage, as these rules are not mirrored by their adversaries.

Excessive focus on civilian casualty counts and stringent adherence to proportionality principles has constrained the military's capacity to leverage its full potential, thus impeding the attainment of victory.

Hegseth criticizes what he perceives as an excessive concern with civilian casualties and proportionality in modern warfare. While he acknowledges the need to minimize harm to civilians, he argues that the current focus on the number of casualties often impedes the effectiveness of military actions and limits the full use of their potential, which is crucial for achieving a swift and decisive victory.

Hegseth contends that an excessive focus on avoiding casualties among non-combatants frequently extends the duration of conflicts, which paradoxically causes an increase in fatalities for all parties involved. Limitations placed on the operations of the armed forces, stemming from concerns over accidental civilian casualties, provide enemies with the chance to reorganize, restock, and continue their engagement in hostilities. He contends that rapidly undermining the adversary's resolve to combat would, in the end, preserve a greater number of lives, including those of American military personnel and non-combatants.

Focus on achieving victories in battle and protecting American lives instead of worrying about how the world views its strategies and tactics.

Hegseth argues that the primary focus of the armed forces should be on conducting war operations effectively and ensuring the protection of the people of the United States, instead of succumbing to the sometimes disingenuous expectations of the international community or concentrating on adherence to outdated and impractical rules of engagement. Pete Hegseth has expressed disapproval regarding the recent strategy adopted by the Biden administration, which operates under the presumption that people and objects in areas of conflict are not engaged in combat, indicating that this shift could heighten the hesitation of troops to engage with opponents and compromise their security.

Hegseth argues that the pursuit of victory should not be misconstrued as unnecessary cruelty or a disregard for the fundamental worth of individuals. The author, using his personal encounters as a foundation, possesses direct understanding of the complex moral dilemmas that are intrinsic to situations of armed conflict. However, he argues that when a nation's focus turns to gaining international approval over the protection and well-being of its own soldiers, it undermines the effectiveness and strength of its military forces.

Other Perspectives

• Adherence to international laws and norms, including the Geneva Conventions, is crucial for maintaining global order and preventing war crimes.
• Rules of engagement designed to protect civilians can enhance the moral standing and legitimacy of the armed forces on the global stage.
• Civilian protection and minimizing collateral damage can be strategically beneficial by winning "hearts and minds" and reducing the likelihood of insurgencies.
• Strict rules of engagement can serve as a check against the fog of war, preventing unnecessary violence and preserving the integrity of military personnel.
• The concept of proportionality is a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law, aimed at balancing military necessity with humanity.
• Military effectiveness is not solely determined by the use of force but also by strategy, diplomacy, and the ability to build alliances, which can be undermined by a disregard for international norms.
• The long-term consequences of heavy-handed military tactics can lead to increased radicalization and prolonged conflict.
• Upholding high standards of conduct in warfare can be a recruitment and retention tool for the military, attracting individuals who value ethical service.
• The assumption that enemies do not follow rules may not always hold true, and disregarding international norms could lead to a dangerous escalation of conflict tactics on all sides.

The military's training methods have been infiltrated by progressive ideologies.

The military academies and educational institutions, now influenced by educators and administrators with a left-leaning bias, are imparting to cadets and officers ideologies that undermine the core purpose of the military.

Pete Hegseth contends that the educational systems within the armed forces are increasingly being shaped by the same extreme beliefs that are common in numerous American colleges, beliefs that originate from leftist thought. The author suggests that the development of future military leaders has been adversely affected by their immersion in ideologies that are in sharp conflict with the enduring moral codes and core beliefs traditionally upheld by the military.

The appointment of leaders and supervisors with ideological leanings in military academies has led to the spread of polarizing views that erode the sense of allegiance to the nation.

Hegseth contends that the selection of ideologically driven leaders within military academies has been instrumental in the proliferation of progressive beliefs. President Biden took unprecedented steps to dismiss advisors from every military academy's panels, replacing them with individuals aligned with the progressive goals of his administration instead of those selected by Trump.

Hegseth contends that the administration deliberately aimed to infuse its viewpoint into the educational and training curricula by wielding its influence within the armed forces' institutions of higher learning. The government has strategically placed like-minded individuals in key positions to ensure that the future command of the military is profoundly shaped by progressive ideologies and predisposed to endorse the government's plan to alter the military's cultural fabric.

The required training and education now emphasize concepts such as understanding systemic racial issues and the principles of acknowledging diversity, promoting equity, and encouraging inclusiveness, which could shift the focus away from traditional military training and potentially hinder the development of future leaders.

Hegseth argues that mandatory training and curricula at the academies have shifted away from traditional military education and are now heavily focused on DEI, CRT, and other left-wing agendas. He cites examples from military academies, including West Point and the Air Force Academy, where cadets are taught about subjects such as "white rage," "patriot extremism," and the supposed inherent racial prejudice of white people. He also evaluates the compulsory curriculum for future officers, which places an emphasis on subjects pertaining to gender and "Sex and Civilizations."

The author contends that changes to the educational syllabus adversely affect the development of upcoming military leaders. Cadets are dedicating precious hours to studying ideologies unrelated to their impending responsibilities and detrimental to the effectiveness of military operations, rather than concentrating on the essential aspects of military history, strategy, tactics, and leadership for their future roles as commanders.

The inclination to favor civilian educators for teaching roles rather than experienced military members has weakened the connection between academic institutions and the core objectives of the armed forces.

The increasing number of civilian professors at military academies, Hegseth argues, is leading to a reduced emphasis on the fundamental principles and goals of the military. He contrasts the background of Joshua Chamberlain, who was a Civil War general and also a rhetoric teacher, with the modern trend of appointing civilian academics to military positions, despite their often having no military background and a predisposition to look down on military institutions.

Hegseth contends that the gap is growing between the command echelon's focus and principles and the perspectives of the troops engaged in combat, further intensified by the increasing detachment between military and academic communities. He argues that academics lacking military experience tend to place their own convictions above the crucial responsibility of preparing prospective officers with the indispensable knowledge and understanding necessary for command during military engagements.

Other Perspectives

• The infusion of progressive ideologies into military training could be seen as an effort to modernize the armed forces to reflect the values of the society they protect, including diversity and inclusiveness.
• Emphasizing understanding systemic racial issues and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusiveness may enhance unit cohesion and effectiveness by fostering an environment of mutual respect and understanding.
• The appointment of civilian educators with diverse perspectives can bring fresh insights and critical thinking skills that are valuable in complex, modern warfare scenarios.
• The inclusion of broader educational topics may prepare military leaders to operate in diverse international environments and engage with civilian populations more effectively.
• Updating training and education to include contemporary social issues could be part of a broader strategy to ensure the military remains relevant and capable of addressing current and future challenges.
• The shift in educational focus might be a response to the changing nature of warfare, which increasingly involves cyber, information, and other forms of non-traditional combat that require different skill sets.
• The argument that progressive ideologies undermine military effectiveness assumes that traditional military values are incompatible with progressive values, which may not necessarily be the case.
• The claim that the gap is growing between the command echelon's focus and the perspectives of troops engaged in combat may overlook the possibility that troops themselves are more diverse and may welcome or benefit from a more inclusive approach.
• The assertion that civilian academics may prioritize their convictions over military preparedness does not consider that these educators could be subject to rigorous vetting processes and held to professional standards that ensure they meet the military's educational objectives.

The broader cultural and ideological shift away from the country's founding principles

The armed forces' involvements reflect a wider clash of principles and societal issues that scrutinize the fundamental beliefs of personal liberty, limited government, and commitment to the rule of law within American society.

Hegseth skillfully connects the internal struggles within the military to a broader cultural and ideological conflict that puts America's foundational values to the test. He argues that those determined to dismantle America's core principles and frameworks are also striving to mold the military to reflect their own image. The author contends that the military's effectiveness is compromised by an all-encompassing ideological clash that elevates social justice and identity politics above merit-based principles, resulting in the weakening of a system that ought to be meritocratic, which in turn hampers the decisive defeat of America's foes.

The military, tasked with safeguarding the Constitution and the American way of life, faces obstacles as progressive factions seek to transform the foundational values of the United States.

Hegseth argues that progressive entities are determined to profoundly alter the fabric of the United States, an endeavor that now includes the transformation of the military. The writer posits that the alteration aims to undermine the military's critical role in protecting the Constitution and America's traditional way of life. He connects this inclination to previous eras of change, like the era of progressivism at the beginning of the 1900s, when figures such as the former President sought to shape American society based on their own convictions and worldviews, often challenging traditional standards and institutions.

Hegseth contends that those holding extreme left-wing beliefs perceive the military as a symbol of American power and distinctiveness, which they view as a barrier to their vision of a globally unified and equitable world. Hegseth contends that there are deliberate efforts to undermine the armed forces by obstructing their capacity for decisive global action and by eroding the unity and morale among their members.

Progressive factions are working diligently to transform the core principles of American society, using the armed forces as a battleground for their ideological disputes, with the goal of molding it to reflect their own principles, which diverge from the conventional values of America.

Hegseth argues that the armed forces have turned into the primary arena for cultural clashes. The benchmarks for achievement within the Department of Defense have become dictated by social engineering programs that are widespread, ranging from pre-kindergarten education to the halls of Ivy League universities. The author argues that certain progressive factions are intentionally striving to transform the ethos of the armed forces to mirror that of typically progressive entities like Harvard, instead of preserving the armed forces' inherently masculine and mission-centric character. Hegseth perceives identical dynamics at work, ranging from DEI metrics to the undermining of faith-based values.

In Hegseth's view, this conflict of principles is evident in numerous forms, including the drive for gender integration in combat positions and the efforts to remove soldiers with conservative and Christian beliefs from military service. Hegseth suggests that the divisions within the armed forces mirror the wider societal divisions in America, and how these conflicts within the military are resolved will significantly shape the country's future path.

To protect American freedom and defeat those who seek its destruction, it is essential to rejuvenate the core principles and ethos that embody a soldier in the armed forces.

Hegseth argues that it is crucial to rejuvenate the core values of the country and to restore the long-standing spirit of the warrior to alter this dangerous course. He argues that the military should emphasize personal accomplishments and instill in its troops the resolute courage and audacity essential for safeguarding the country. The author contends that a fundamental transformation in leadership is crucial, guiding military and civilian leaders away from an emphasis on social justice and identity politics and toward a reinvigorated focus on fundamental values like strength, courage, discipline, and achieving goals.

Hegseth contends that it is crucial to alter the current course to prevent the ongoing erosion of America's military strength, which, if left unchecked, could jeopardize the country's safety and freedom. Pete Hegseth argues that supporters of the military, acknowledging its vital importance for national defense, must now stand up against forces that aim to undermine it.

Other Perspectives

• The idea that the military is moving away from the country's founding principles could be challenged by the argument that the founding principles themselves include the ability to adapt and evolve with the times, which may include embracing changes in societal values.
• The assertion that progressive factions are transforming foundational values could be countered by the perspective that what is seen as progressive today may be considered foundational in the future, as societal norms are not static.
• The claim that the military is being used as a battleground for ideological disputes might be met with the argument that the military has always reflected broader societal debates and that this is a sign of a healthy democracy where different viewpoints are represented.
• The notion that the armed forces have become the primary arena for cultural clashes could be countered by the argument that the military, like any large institution, is a microcosm of society and thus naturally includes a variety of cultural and ideological perspectives.
• The idea that there is a conflict of principles within the armed forces could be met with the argument that diversity of thought and background strengthens the military by bringing in a range of experiences and viewpoints, which can be critical in complex, global missions.
• The call to rejuvenate the core principles and ethos of soldiers might be challenged by the argument that the core principles of the military must evolve to remain relevant and effective in a changing world, which includes recognizing and adapting to new threats and challenges.