Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is sparking controversy – inside and outside the military – with public comments on the war with Iran that are heavy on taunts and talk of retribution, a stark departure from the way his predecessors have communicated during wartime.
In briefing reporters on the progress of military operations, Mr. Hegseth has repeatedly said that America would be hunting and killing its adversary without apology, hesitation, or mercy. He has decried “stupid rules of engagement,” rejected “politically correct wars,” and criticized Europeans for “clutch[ing] their pearls” in the face of America’s decisive action.
He told U.S. troops in the thick of operations to “be focused, disciplined, lethal, and unbreakable” as he urged them on. “We are not defenders anymore. We are warriors, trained to kill the enemy and break their will,” he said. “We unleash you.”
Why We Wrote This
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s statements about the war in Iran are galvanizing to supporters, but critics hear a glorification of violence that runs counter to professional soldiering.
And he has berated reporters, many of whom have been hand-picked from conservative outlets, for asking questions. “Why would we tell you — you, the enemy, anybody — what we will or will not do?” he asked last week, gesticulating, then accusing another of asking a “typical NBC sort of, gotcha-type question.”
At a news conference on Tuesday morning, Secretary Hegseth appeared less combative toward the media but maintained an aggressive tone. The United States will not relent, he said, until “the enemy is totally and decisively defeated.”
It is the kind of tough talk that, for supporters, is a point of pride, meant to galvanize the troops and let them know their leaders have their backs. But to critics, the tone is puerile and glorifies violence. For some service members, it comes across as posturing that runs counter to professional soldiering.
Reactions to Mr. Hegseth’s rhetoric, particularly on social media forums where U.S. troops trade gossip and information, range from pumped fists to puzzlement to the sort of humor embraced by troops through the ages.
One American soldier joked after listening to Mr. Hegseth that the U.S. would no doubt be attacking Cuba imminently in a war it would probably call “Operation Your Mom.”
Historically, defense secretaries have aimed to frame U.S. military operations “optimistically, to say that progress is being made,” says David Kieran, associate professor of history at Columbus State University in Georgia. “But when you get to Secretary Hegseth, the tone is much more, I would say, celebratory.”
While reveling in the spectacle of America’s military dominance is “very appealing” to some, Dr. Kieran adds, it shouldn’t “distract from the larger strategic and political questions that underlie the decision to wage war or use military power in a way that puts people’s lives at risk.”
David Longstreath/AP/File
Victory speeches and limited reaches
Celebrating U.S. military superiority and enemy weakness is nothing new for American defense officials leading the country into conflict. But most have sought to strike a balance between sober professionalism and swagger, keeping displays of excitement in check.
In 1990, during the lead-up to the Gulf War, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney praised U.S. forces as “well-trained, superbly equipped, and ready.” The Iraqi army, Mr. Cheney added, “will find itself facing an opponent unlike any it has encountered before.”
When the ground offensive began the following February, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of U.S. forces during Operation Desert Storm, took a dig at Iraqi forces.
“As you know, this is the fourth-largest army in the world,” he said. “But after this operation, it will be the second-largest army in Iraq.”
A decade later, in 2003 during the Iraq War, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld congratulated coalition troops on their “magnificent” progress before turning to the Iraqi soldiers.
“The regime’s forces are badly trained, badly led, and badly equipped,” he said.
These were swipes, but measured ones, in keeping with the general tenor of modern defense leaders.
Mr. Hegseth’s rhetoric, by contrast, has been amped up to a degree many Americans and even troops might find unseemly, says retired Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson, who served during the Iraq War.
“He’s all about the macho, bro culture. All of this tough-guy nonsense – all this talk about killing – appeals, no doubt, to some elements of the military.” But not to others, he adds, and “not to the vast majority of military leaders.”
Top officers are more accustomed to the “walk softly and carry a big stick” approach to soldiering, Mr. Anderson says, and solemnity in the face of lives given up defending their country.
“I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can – only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity,” said Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who served as supreme Allied commander in Europe, during remarks to the Canadian Club of Ottawa in 1946, just months after World War II’s end.
A recent poll by Punchbowl News found that 72% of senior Capitol Hill staffers, including 52% of the Republican staffers, believe that Mr. Hegseth has harmed President Donald Trump’s national security agenda.
A Quinnipiac Poll released last week found that the same percentage of registered voters disapprove of the way the defense secretary is handling his job.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP
A contrast with Caine
Not all of the Trump administration’s Defense Department is echoing the combative style of Mr. Hegseth, who led the charge last year to rename the department the Department of War.
Before walking reporters through the initial phases of Operation Epic Fury at a March 4 Pentagon briefing, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke about the sacrifice of fallen American soldiers.
He expressed his “deep condolences” for the troops who had been killed and wounded in action. “They’re true examples of what selfless service means,” he said before expressing gratitude for all U.S. personnel who continue to stand in harm’s way.
At that same briefing, Mr. Hegseth berated members of the media for reporting on those casualties, saying they did it to spite President Trump.
“When a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it’s front-page news,” he said. “I get it, the press only wants to make the president look bad.” His comments drew fire from both traditional and social media.
The defense secretary then returned to the topic of how the U.S. military would “obliterate” Iran’s missile and drone facilities and “annihilate” its navy and critical infrastructure.
While distasteful to some, Mr. Hegseth’s enthusiastic enumerations of tactical triumphs also might serve to deflect legitimate questions about the administration’s endgame in the war, or about apparent misfires – such as the deadly missile attack on a girls’ elementary school in Iran, which is under investigation.
“If we focus on what the military can do and its power, does that take away from the larger political strategic questions of why we are using military force, or what the goal of that force is, or what the likely outcome of the use of that force will be?” Dr. Kieran says.
For former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the key to navigating such questions was humility.
In a 2011 speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, then-Secretary Gates said that no one can know “with absolute certainty what the future of warfare will hold. But we do know it will be exceedingly complex, unpredictable, and – as they say in the staff colleges – ‘unstructured.’”
When it comes to the defense establishment’s ability to plan for and predict what sort of wars the U.S. will fight next, one thing is clear, Mr. Gates told the cadets: “Since Vietnam, our record has been perfect,” he noted. “We have never once gotten it right.”
