A Culture Warrior to MMGA
Trump’s cabinet nominees are provocative, to say the least. There has to be some stratagem behind Gaetz in particular, because it is facially hard to understand on the merits, but I’ll be damned if I know what that strategem is. Yes, I can see Trump wanting Gaetz or someone like him. But a choice should depend on both the desirability of the outcome conditional on its occurrence, and the probability of it occurring. Since Gaetz’s odds seem extremely low, and Trump must know that, I infer that Trump is deliberately courting rejection. But why? I have nothing.
I could go through all of them, but there’s only so many hours in the day. I will therefore focus on the one closest to my interest, SecDef (Hegseth). I will try to do a post on Tulsi Gabbard soon.
Of course the assault on Hegseth started nanoseconds after his name was announced, and was launched from the usual swampy quarters on the usual swampy grounds. He hasn’t served in the swamp! Therefore he is unqualified to be SecDef! There is also a concerted personal attack under way: racist, white supremacist, alleged sexual assailant. The usual, in other words.
Now those are the stated reasons for opposing him, but as we’ll see, not the real reasons. Indeed, I think the real reasons are that the swamp fears that he is capable of running DoD in the way Trump wants it run.
As for qualifications, just what are they? What individual who has run for, or has been, commander in chief or in line to be commander in chief, has the qualifications? For example, Tim Walz was supposedly qualified to be commander in chief, but based on what? Twenty plus years as a National Guard NCO who bugged out when there was a risk he’d actually get shot at? If so, and I see no other qualifications, Hegseth–20 year NG veteran, retired as major, multiple combat tours, two Bronze Stars–is qualified to be SecDef. If someone is qualified to be CinC, they should be more than qualified to be SecDef. Similar things could be said about Obama, Harris, Biden, and Trump, and pretty much any late-20th-21st century president or veep you could name except for Eisenhower. Their military and managerial bona fides ranged from non-existent to extremely limited.
Our current SecDef has the kinds of credentials the swamp thinks necessary–general who retired to clean up in the MIC–and he’s been a complete dolt who cannot claim any positive accomplishment. (Name one. I dare you). The fact that he could go missing for several days without anybody really noticing, a la Major Major Major Major, tells you all you need to know about his contributions to our national defense.
In recent decades most SecDefs have been apparatchiks who had no lasting impact.
Meaning that the background that the swamp demands is neither necessary nor sufficient for success. I doubt it is even a strong predictor of performance.
The SecDef’s job consists of two basic parts: establishing policy objectives, and steering the Pentagon towards achieving them. The swamp tut-tuts about Hegseth’s ability to do the latter, but they really fear the former, and his ability to achieve the latter.
In rather outspoken, and frequently salty, remarks before his name was floated as the nominee, Hegseth revealed that his overriding policy objective is to change fundamentally the culture of the military. In particular, to change it back to what it was. MMGA. Make the Military Great Again.
The uniformed and civilian incumbents who advanced in that culture, and who have actively promoted it, detest Hegseth on those grounds alone.
In particular, Hegseth has made it plain that he believes that the DEI culture that pervades today’s military is inimical to the purpose of the military–war fighting–and must be eliminated root and branch. Part of that rooting out means terminating many general officers, including (and he has called him out specifically) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
He has said that the expression “diversity is our strength” makes him throw up in his mouth. I can relate.
In my reasons to vote for Trump post, I specifically listed elimination of DEI, in the military in particular. It is vital for restoring the culture of the military.
So yes, he is a “culture warrior.” A “warrior culture warrior” actually. “Culture warrior” is hurled as an epithet against him. It’s actually a great qualification given the depths to which the military has descended.
He’s absolutely right that rescuing and restoring the culture is necessary to rescue recruiting, which is one of the military’s current grave problems.
In interviews he has suggested going back to the standards and procedures in place around 1995. That is actually a very thoughtful idea. Not necessarily to be applied literally, but as a useful exercise in resetting the military.
The mid-90s represents what is arguably the acme of American military power and performance. The military of that era was optimized for peer and near-peer conflicts, and had yet to have experienced the corrosive effects (doctrinally, force design, weapons acquisition, morale, etc.) of decades of counterinsurgency focus. We are again in an era where we need to focus on peer conflicts. Moreover, it predates the descent into DEI madness (though that had begun, with “don’t ask, don’t tell”).
So use the mid-90s as a baseline. See what has changed, and determine why. See what effects the changes have had. Get rid of the pernicious changes–of which there have been many.
As for firing generals, this will be salutary for many reasons. To get rid of those responsible for the cultural decay and prevent them from doing further damage. And pour encourager les autres.
Indeed, although a board to vet the current generals has been mooted, maybe that isn’t necessary, or at least could be supplemented by instituting the Roman practice of decimation. Just axing 10 percent at random. I say that only partly in the spirit of A Modest Proposal.
Decimation was adopted and worked for a reason. It was a punishment exacted on an organization (a cohort, a legion) that had failed. It was a signal that the failure was collective, and the responsibility of all. It incentivized each legionnaire to police others, for each knew that they could pay a price for the failure of others.
The American military has failed in recent decades. The failure is collective. Take it from there.
Fixing the culture is an overriding priority. Another is fixing procurement–another collective failure. Current flag ranks plus senior civilian DoD staff are responsible for that. This is another reason for a thorough culling.
Here’s an area where Elon Musk could provide very valuable insight. Name one procurement program that has come close to matching what Musk has done with SpaceX, or Tesla for that matter. You can’t.
Indeed, I’d prefer Musk focus his DOGE efforts on this, rather than spread them across the entirety of the US government. Military procurement is government inefficiency par excellence, and needs a major overhaul.
I therefore agree with Hegseth’s policy priorities, as he has expressed them in pre-nomination interviews.
And I don’t GAF that he has bad tattoos.
The jury is of course out on how successful he can be in implementing them.
He will face intense internal opposition. Which is precisely why a thorough culling of the flag ranks and senior civilians is imperative.
Hegseth obviously can’t do it alone. Strong and aligned service secretaries are essential. As are the various under- and assistant secretaries and their staffs.
But it can be done. Reagan inherited a dispirited and lost military when he took office in 1981. Under his leadership, and that of Caspar Weinberger (who definitely did not have a MIC background, and indeed wanted to be Secretary of State but was given Defense instead) and his deputies, the military was turned around within a few short years.
I believe that the task will be more difficult, 44 years later. The institutional rot and bloat is worse now than then. But it must be done. And it must start with the culture. For that, a culture warrior is essential.
Robert Malone recently published a commentary about the Senior Executive Service. These people are the true deep state.
They are the reason the deep state wants incompetent Executive Department Secretaries — so the SES is in actual control of the Department
https://www.malone.news/p/never-underestimate-the-power-of?publication_id=583200&post_id=151555249&isFreemail=false&r=bo034&triedRedirect=true
“The Senior Executive Service (SES) class of federal employees was created under President Carter through the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
“The SES was established to “…ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.” Another Carter-created component of the State, as is the Department of Education.
“The SES employees were supposed to ensure top performances in all the various agencies. That was the theory, but the reality is something entirely different, as is so often the case with these initiatives such as the “Department of Homeland Security”.
“Members of the SES serve in the key positions just below the top Presidential appointees. SES employees are the major link between these appointees and the rest of the Federal workforce.
“They operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies.
“They are referred to as members by the Office of Personnel Management and are considered above “employee” designation. They are members of the SES, and don’t you forget that!
“Today’s SES runs the country.”
It continues.
I didn’t know about these people — the SES — but in retrospect they explain a lot about the immovability of destructive government policy.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 15, 2024 @ 4:55 pm
@Pat Frank. Like the Yes Minister. Only not funny.
Comment by cpirrong — November 15, 2024 @ 9:38 pm
Another issue is the purge boards. But who can blame them. The United States military, every single branch, has enormous problems.
They have recruiting and retention issues, failing to meet their quotas to keep our units at full strength. They have severe training issues. Maintenance issues.
When they had to actually deploy for a mission, the retreat in Afghanistan, they failed miserable.
Every one of their military procurement projects are over over over budget, far behind any delivery promises, and underwhelming in their final results. Just look at the Navy with the problems with the Ford Class carriers, the Zumwalt destroyers, the “littoral” combat ships. They are struggling to design and build a simple frigate class ship and even have to look at foreign builders. Plus they had a $1.2 billion amphibious assault ship burn down in harbor…. fire fighting has always been a hallmark of the US Navy.
Yet, who has been fired? All of these high ranking generals/admirals have ribbon after ribbon pinned on their chest and survive these mission crushing issues??????
Just like in the Civil War, these officers need to report to the board and pass fitness to command review. If they do not, they need to be purged.
Comment by MARK — November 15, 2024 @ 11:32 pm
Exactly this. To your point on govt regs. There are so many inefficiencies in all areas of govt fixing them is Herculean. Military procurement inefficiency accounts for how many billions?
Comment by Jeff Carter — November 16, 2024 @ 2:03 am
Thanks Craig. Knew you couldn’t resist.
There’s a more fundamental question which this fella needs to answer, namely what exactly is the point in the US fielding such a massive military machine, given its (self declared) diminishing global role? I mean, if Trump actually follows through with his promise to withdraw from NATO, it’s commitments beyond the homeland will be minimal – protecting the odd line of control here, supporting the odd island nation there. Nothing which would justify such vast expenditure. Musk would have a field day if he had a similar view and set to work.
One other topic which Hegseth may want to look at is how China manages so successfully to ride on the coattails of the US’s military largesse: “You spend the big money, and we’ll steal your ideas and knock them out at a fraction of the price!”. Take a look at their recently unveiled J35 – they cheeky buggers haven’t even bothered to give it much of a different name (who said the Chinese don’t have a sense of humour?), and they’ve even managed to make it look better. While your looking, also have a gander at some of their other aircraft and helos and see if you can spot any passing resemblances – the AliExpress Blackhawk, the Temu Typhoon etc.
PS Regarding his tats, well each to their own. I certainly wouldn’t be sporting it if I had a remit to win friends and influence people in the ME.
Comment by David Mercer — November 16, 2024 @ 2:51 am
It’s not the first time a government has been driven to despair by its own extravagance. The British government had a go at chopping expenditure a hundred years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geddes_Axe
Clearly its success wasn’t permanent – on the other hand it must have had some effect because people of my parents’ generation, who were mere kiddy-winkies when it happened, still talked about it when I was a boy.
Comment by dearieme — November 16, 2024 @ 5:57 am
https://neveryetmelted.com/2024/11/16/just-wow/
Comment by t c phillips — November 17, 2024 @ 8:56 am
The key to the Roman practice of decimation was that the other 9/10 did the nasty job of stoning, battering, cutting etc.
They should do a pay-for-view show with 9 generals chopping up the unlucky tenth.
Yep, they drew lots back in the day. Short straw? You’re for the chop!
Comment by Simple Simon — November 17, 2024 @ 1:11 pm
‘Our current SecDef has … been a complete dolt who cannot claim any positive accomplishment. (Name one. I dare you).’
Successfully tested the latest, most top-secret ‘cloak of invisibility’ tech for several consecutive days.
Comment by Ex-Global Super-Regulator on Lunch Break — November 18, 2024 @ 5:19 am
Schlichter has an interesting piece re: Hegseth appt. He doesn’t hold back….
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2024/11/18/secdef-pete-hegseth-will-be-a-welcome-injection-of-vitamin-i-infantry-n2647885
Comment by ColoComment — November 18, 2024 @ 11:49 am
The intriguing question is whether all this DEI mullarky is a cause – or symptom – of the US mil’s recruitment issues? Personally I don’t think many centrist/left leaning individuals will now be considering it as a career option. They can just sit back and enjoy their lattes & peruse fabric swatches etc, and let the MAGA loons fill the ranks and do all the heavy lifting.
Comment by David Mercer — November 19, 2024 @ 11:13 am
Joe Klein of Clinton era has a great substack on where the Democratic Party is and why they have a problem.
https://josephklein.substack.com/p/not-a-democrat
I’m all about upending the Federal bureaucracy BUT, Trump’s no,I nations are unlikely to do much. They don’t know how the system works, how to identify the problems and aren’t philosophically committed. This a task that will take real commitment and likely a two-term administration with Congress behind it.
Comment by The Pilot — November 23, 2024 @ 9:28 am
@Pilot: thanks for that. I sympathise with much that he says but I do not agree with his support for trade unions outside government work. This is probably related to my watching the antics of the British trade unions before Thatcher imposed some sanity, and also undergoing a revealing episode with a union when I worked in industry. “Squash ’em flat” is my advice.
Comment by dearieme — November 26, 2024 @ 6:28 am