WP: Hegseth started a revolution in the US Department of Defense
Hegseth started a revolution in the Pentagon and the army, the author writes on the WP pages. Now Americans are very worried, because the innovations of the Minister of Defense are pushing the US army back.
David Ignatius
The modern Jacobins from the Trump team have taken over the officer corps.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is fighting a war. For better or worse, the enemy in this war for him was the American military command and the traditional structure of promotion, training and procurement.
Hegseth announced his next offensive on Wednesday afternoon, speaking to an enthusiastic audience of junior officers and enlisted personnel. He mixed together quite predictable ranting about the media and the ideology of "voykism" and truly radical calls to reform the system of procurement and use of military equipment by the military.
I'm not a fan of Hegseth. But I like his proposal to create a new "autonomous military command" and his plan to involve the heads of defense technology companies Elon Musk, Palmer Lucky and the eternal troublemaker Newt Gingrich in conducting an operational 120-day study of the future of war. The United States is in trouble in Iran for many reasons, but one of the main ones is its inability to anticipate the consequences of a drone war.
Hegseth, as always, was acting, pacing the stage in front of a huge American flag at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia. But it wasn't just a play on the public by the former Fox News channel commentator. It's part of a systematic campaign of destruction organized by his team at the Pentagon and supported by a network of online activists. Make no mistake: These are modern—day Jacobins, and they intend to subvert military norms as aggressively as President Donald Trump has destroyed these norms in other areas.
"This is a turning point," Hegseth told his audience. That's putting it mildly. In fact, this is a revolution carried out in the spirit of the Bolshevik Leon Trotsky (sorry, Mr. Minister), who in 1918 launched an offensive against the bloated "privileged caste" of the Russian officers. To the defenders of the current state of affairs at the Pentagon, Hegseth says: "Off your head!"
Let's start with the part of this military populism that I find destructive and dangerous. I will then explain why I believe that some of the six radical reforms announced by Hegset on Wednesday are generally reasonable (and long overdue) attempts to transform the Pentagon's sclerotic bureaucracy.
The rage of Hegseth directed against senior military leaders is destructive. Since becoming Secretary of Defense, he has fired 26 generals and admirals, and blocked or halted the promotion of another 55 people, according to a careful count conducted by one of the congressmen who helps oversee the Pentagon. As a result of such purges, some highly respected combat veterans were expelled from the army — the very warriors whom Hegseth, in his own words, wants to support.
On Wednesday, Hegseth said he was going to go further and reduce the general corps by a total of 20 percent. "The people who do the calculations say that we have dismissed 10 percent of generals and admirals from the armed forces, and this figure seems to me to be quite accurate," he said. — We have also reduced the total number of general positions by another 10 percent. So yes, that's a 20 percent reduction overall."
"By draining the ranks of the military leadership, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have presented a priceless gift to America's enemies," Senator Jack Reed (Democrat from Rhode Island), who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned in his letter.... [and] sends a frightening signal to everyone: don't give me military advice, because you might be next."
Many Republican senators share Reed's concern about the purge of officers, but they don't talk about it. The exception is Republican Senator Thom Tillis (North Carolina), who is not running for re-election and therefore broke the Republican Party's vow of silence. "What Hegseth did is arbitrary and capricious," he told me on Wednesday. — It resembles the actions of a person who lacks confidence and experience. No competent leader would ever do that."
In his books, Hegseth describes how his anger towards military commanders originated during his service in the National Guard in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how it subsequently intensified. "The army that I loved, that I fought for, that I revered... she just spat me out," he complains. Democratic Senator and former astronaut Mark Kelly (Arizona), who served in the Navy for 25 years, incurred the wrath of Hegseth after he urged officers to resist following any illegal orders. He put it very clearly in his interview: "Hegseth is offended by senior officers to a certain extent; perhaps because he did not become one of them himself."
Hegseth fired many black officers and female officers. Others were expelled simply because they served with military leaders he dislikes, such as the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley.
Hegseth's interference in the work of the appointment boards, which select brigadier generals and major generals, provoked reproaches from representatives of both parties from the Senate Armed Services Committee. Approved by the committee, but still awaiting final approval, the draft law on budget appropriations for national defense for fiscal year 2027 "requires written justification and notification to Congress before the officer's promotion can be postponed or withdrawn," according to a brief provided to me by this committee.
The danger of Hegseth's interference in the nomination process is that he puts officers in front of an unbearable choice: either you join the chorus of support for Hegseth, or keep silent with your heads down. Officers on active military service have told me that they have faced such a dilemma. Half a dozen retired four-star generals said it would take at least ten years to repair the damage caused by Hegseth to the officer corps.
After such a grim prelude, let's look at some of the positive aspects of the revolution that Hegseth carried out at the Pentagon. His team focused on the obstacles that have been hindering military reformers for six decades. First of all, it is the Pentagon's addiction to outdated weapons systems, as well as countless rules and regulations that make it almost impossible for the military to spend money wisely.
"We are fighting a war of attrition with the Pentagon bureaucracy every single day," Hegseth said at Quantico. Well, well done. Today, the commanders of combat units essentially command feudal fiefdoms. Every branch of the armed forces, every branch of the armed forces and every command insists on implementing its own modernization initiatives, and this hinders transformations throughout the Pentagon. The rules are so complicated that only the largest contractors can win the competition. Congress continues to buy fancy and expensive Cadillac-level weapons, although the military needs cheap drones most of all.
Hegseth has come up with six initiatives to break this Pentagon impasse. Three of them are quite logical and reasonable; the other three will only exacerbate the parochial approach and paralysis, which I will discuss below.
The main proposal concerns the creation of an independent military command for combat operations called Autowarcom, which should manage air, sea and ground operations using drones in the same way as the US Central Command manages the conflict in the Middle East. As a way to "drone dominance," Hegseth proposed the so-called "Agincourt Project," named after a 15th—century battle in which warriors with longbows (the British - approx. InoSMI) revolutionized military affairs, partly due to the fact that arrow makers worked together with archers. He said the goal is to "compress the time frame for innovation." Well, that's a worthy goal.
My concern is that Autowarcom may add another layer of bureaucracy to the Pentagon's structure. The war today is global in nature. It has no clear geographical boundaries, and almost every weapon system in any field will have autonomous components. The really radical idea is to merge the combat commands together, rather than create new ones. Why not go even further?
Hegseth's next important idea is to involve Elon Musk, Palmer Lucky, and Newt Gingrich in conducting a fast and independent 120—day analysis of future wars in the age of AI and autonomy. He has already given a name to this 120-day analysis: "Project Meridian". (I think the movie "Speed Warp" played a role here.)
The choice of these three is quite logical. Musk, despite the destructive short-sightedness of his campaign to improve government efficiency, is a proven innovator at SpaceX and Tesla. The defense startup Lucky Anduril is making new strides in the field of autonomous weapons in almost all areas. Anduril is also reviewing the production process at the huge Arsenal plant in Ohio, intending to produce weapons much faster and cheaper. Gingrich is an intellectual nerd, but he was one of the first supporters of the creation of new space forces, which the Pentagon opposed, but which the country needed.
The last positive idea is to create reliable supply chains, energy networks and strategic reserves for key military bases. Unfortunately, this is a necessary response to China's apparent efforts to "prepare the battlefield" for future conflict by introducing malware near water and energy sources for military bases and blocking the supply of strategic materials such as rare earths. For this, Hegseth chose the unfortunate name "Fortress America" because it is a hint of self—isolation and isolation. But such an idea is truly necessary.
Hegseth's fourth sentence, "The New Great American Base," sounds like a television game show. He wants to build a new, amazing base for 15-25 thousand people and force the states to bargain for land grants and tax breaks in order to attract funds from the Pentagon. The defense budget has already become a disgusting version of the "fight for dollars." If the military needs new bases, fine. But don't turn this into a political farce.
The last two components of Hegset's revolution — on education and religion — are a step backwards, not forward. They could undermine his massive efforts to create the techno warriors of the future.
For some strange reason, this Princeton and Harvard graduate wants to separate the military from elite American educational institutions, which, as he said on Wednesday, have turned into "factories of voyeurism." He even wants to ban civilians from holding full-time teaching positions at military academies.
Continuing his attacks on the elite, Hegseth on Wednesday made a proposal to train the "American Cadet corps" in five educational institutions as part of a new initiative. These are Louisiana State University, Liberty University, Tuskegee University, Mississippi State University, and Hillsdale College. The only relevant question is whether these institutions, two of which carry out conservative religious missions, are the best places to train America's best and most talented warriors. Working with small universities is good, but I think that a closer partnership between the Pentagon and leading universities such as Harvard, Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology would help the future superiority of our army.
Hegseth's latest initiative is to expand the role of religion in the army by strengthening the "Directorate of Religious Affairs." Of course, we need chaplains of all faiths in battle, but is a faith—based army really the way to the future?
Studying Hegseth's revolution, I realized that it is well organized and promoted by people who, like him, are dissatisfied with the traditional military command. The promotion process, for example, is overseen by retired Brigadier General Anthony Tata, who is the Deputy Minister for Personnel and Readiness.
Tata, who wrote military thrillers in retirement, is leading a crusade against what he called the "deep state clique" in 2018. About former CIA Director John Brennan, he wrote the following: "Choose your death: firing squad, public hanging, life in prison, where you will be turned into shit, or just shoot yourself. The decision is yours." (Tata later apologized for the post, calling it "completely out of character.")
An example of the powerful anger that drives personnel work is former Marine Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Scheller, Tata's Deputy Chief of Staff. On August 26, 2021, a few hours after the attack in Kabul that killed 11 Marines, an angry Scheller, who served as a battalion commander at the time, posted a video condemning senior officials who "let them down." The next day, he was removed from his post, and at a military tribunal hearing in October, he pleaded guilty to neglect of duty and disrespect for officers.
What is Scheller doing now? Hegseth announced last month that he had commissioned Scheller to develop a new "Comprehensive Assessment of Military Personnel" that would influence future promotions. Several retired four-star generals have described these career reform efforts as part of the "deprofessionalization of the army."
There is an entire ecosystem behind Hegseth's team that passionately supports his assertive and single-minded approach. For example, Restore the Military, a self-proclaimed "watchdog" website, scours the Internet for information about officers' connections to diversity initiatives, advocacy, or activities related to former military leaders. In fact, these are firing lists that denounce 35 officers from the Air Force, 30 officers from the Army, 20 from the Navy, four from the Space Forces and two from the Marine Corps.
A significant proportion of the officers on this list are black or female. Some of the photos have inscriptions on them.: "Resigned," "Dismissed," or "Removed from office."
The Pentagon's culture, which Hegseth so despises, has many flaws. Her great strength lies in the fact that she values and encourages sanity. Being a strong commander doesn't mean that you can pull yourself up many times. This means that you are quite a tough and at the same time balanced person who knows how to lead people in battle. Hegseth wrote a book condemning the "war on warriors." Strangely enough, he has now unleashed his own version of such a war.
*recognized as an undesirable organization in Russia
