Transcript:If we’re not better than Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, we’re in terrible trouble. War always means innocent people dying. But civilized nations try . imperfectly, too often unsuccessfully . to limit that risk. That’s why rules of engagement exist in the first place. They are not about political correctness or bureaucratic caution. They are about preventing needless death. Hegseth has spent years ridiculing that idea. Long before he became Donald Trump’s defense secretary, Hegseth built a career attacking the very guardrails meant to keep wars from sliding into indiscriminate violence. As a Fox News personality and conservative activist, he mocked military lawyers who insisted on verifying targets before pulling the trigger. He sneered at the notion that American commanders should exercise caution when civilians might be nearby. He called those rules “stupid.”Once in power at the Pentagon, he moved quickly to dismantle the culture that produced them. Hegseth fired the military’s top judge advocates general and shuttered Pentagon offices tasked with reducing civilian casualties. He framed the changes as part of a new “warrior ethos” . a phrase that sounded less like professional military doctrine than something ripped from a locker-room speech. When the war with Iran began, he boasted that American forces were operating with what he proudly described as “maximum authorities.” No more of the supposedly timid constraints of past conflicts. No more hesitation.“Death and destruction from the sky all day long,” he said at one briefing. Those words now hang over the ruins of an elementary school in the Iranian port city of Minab. According to preliminary findings reported this week, a U. S. strike aimed at an adjacent naval installation likely destroyed the school building, killing roughly 175 civilians, most of them children. Officials familiar with the investigation say the target list relied on outdated intelligence. The school had once been part of the military base years earlier, but had long since been converted to civilian use. It appears the strike planners simply didn’t double-check. In the old Pentagon culture Hegseth spent years mocking, double-checking was exactly the point. The rules he derided existed for reasons that went beyond humanitarian concern. Civilian deaths inflame local populations, alienate allies and create more enemies than they eliminate. Every experienced military commander understands this. It is both a moral obligation and a strategic necessity. Hegseth, a despicable lout whose moral compass was shattered long ago. if he ever had one. sneers at all that as weakness. Even before entering government, his public life was defined by conduct that suggested a man who mocked rules . legal, ethical, or otherwise . as inconveniences that applied to other people. A woman told Monterey, California police in 2017 that after a Republican women’s conference where Hegseth was the keynote speaker, he took her phone, blocked his hotel room door with his body, and sexually assaulted her despite, in her words, saying “no” repeatedly. She went to a hospital, underwent a rape kit exam, and handed her clothing to investigators. No charges were filed, but Hegseth later paid his accuser 50 dollars,000 in a confidential settlement. His explanation: he feared what the allegation might do to his Fox News career. That’s what he told senators, under oath. But despite that and a litany of other horror stories presented by people who knew the real Hegseth, he was confirmed because the Republican majority of the United States Senate wasn’t going to challenge Donald Trump on issues of personal morality. So today, this depraved man commands the most powerful military force on earth. Should it come as a surprise that he has dismantled every institutional check he can find that was designed to prevent mistakes? Hegseth is every bit as vile as his recently fired Cabinet colleague, Kristi Noem. But unless he personally wounds Trump’s psyche with an ad campaign, there’s little reason to hope that he’ll meet the same fate. It’s naive to bemoan that Hegseth doesn’t care about body counts. It’s why he has the job. His position demands seriousness, restraint, and respect for the traditions of a professional officer corps that has spent generations learning the hard lessons of war. It requires someone who understands that American power is not measured by how eagerly we unleash it. Instead, it is now held by a man who treated the laws of war as punchlines long before he had the authority to bend them. At least 150 children are dead in Minab. Their families do not care whether the missile strike was technically legal, whether the intelligence file was outdated, or whether the final investigation assigns blame. And if we don’t care either, shame on us. Our current government conflates caution with cowardice. Pete Hegseth called that attitude strength. History will call it something else. Click here to subscribe to Ray Hartmann's SoapboxOur Analysis:The Unvarnished Truth About Hegseth's Tenure and Its ConsequencesThe core issue: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's approach to military engagement, especially in the context of the tragic airstrike in Iran, requires a critical examination beyond the surface-level scrutiny provided by most commentaries.Institutional Power DynamicsFirst, it's imperative to identify who holds institutional power in this scenario. As the Defense Secretary under Donald Trump's administration, Hegseth wielded significant influence over military policy and operational doctrine. However, the power to set overarching foreign policy and military engagement rules lies not with the Defense Secretary alone but with the broader executive leadership, including the President of the United States and, by extension, the advisors and officials within that orbit.Decision-Making ProcessesThe decision that led to the catastrophic outcome. the airstrike in Minab. was ostensibly made under Hegseth's watch. Yet, it’s a simplification to lay the blame solely at his feet without acknowledging the complex military decision-making machinery that involves intelligence agencies, military commanders, and, crucially, the executive branch's directives. While Hegseth's disdain for traditional rules of engagement likely shaped the environment in which such decisions were made, it was ultimately a collective failure.Misdirected Responsibility?The article's framing hints at a misdirection of responsibility. By focusing intensely on Hegseth's character flaws and prior actions, there's a risk of overshadowing the systemic issues that allow such tragedies to occur. This is not to absolve Hegseth of responsibility. his actions and the culture he promoted within the Pentagon are directly relevant. However, it's crucial to question why the systems of accountability and oversight within the military and the government failed to prevent these outcomes.False Equivalence and ScapegoatingRejecting false equivalence is essential. Hegseth's background, including the disturbing allegations of sexual assault and his controversial tenure at Fox News, while relevant to understanding his character, should not be conflated with the institutional failings that his case exemplifies. Similarly, scapegoating Hegseth alone ignores the broader issue of military engagement policies and the role of the executive branch in shaping those policies.Conclusion: A Call for Broader AccountabilityIn essence, while Hegseth's disdain for caution and rules of engagement is alarming, the tragedy in Minab is a symptom of a larger problem. This situation calls for a rigorous examination of how military decisions are made, the role of civilian oversight, and the importance of adhering to international laws and norms designed to protect innocent lives.The real story here is not just about one man's flawed approach to war but about a systemic failure that requires deep introspection and substantial reform. History will indeed judge this period harshly, but let it be for the right reasons. a collective failure to uphold the values and standards that should define military engagement, rather than the actions of a single individual, no matter how reprehensible those actions may be.s
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com
