My father taught me, “Don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot. Don’t shoot at anything you don’t intend to kill.” I think we should approach warfare similarly. My father’s point was not, “Only use this gun for rampaging mass murder.” It was, “Guns are serious. Handle them with respect. Use them with circumspection.”
I agree with Hegseth that when we go to war, we should be willing to go all out. Atrocities should never be Plan A, but it’s pretty easy for any adversary to engineer circumstances wherein we can’t win without killing civilians. We should kill as many as are needed to win, and no more.
Where I bet I disagree with Hegseth is the corollary: that if the goal is not important enough to be worth killing people, even innocent ones if necessary, then we shouldn’t go to war in the first place. War is very, very bad. There are things even worse than war, and we should be willing to fight to prevent those things. But we must weigh such decisions with great care and the most wisdom we can muster.
I have yet to see any evidence of wisdom from Peter Hegseth.
I’d suggest reading Clausewitz’s characterization of Scharnhorst, architect of Prussia’s military regeneration, to illustrate how a warrior appearance has little to do with military efficacy.
The question is not a “caring” ethos against the warrior, but a matter of substance versus appearance. Hegseth is sacrificing the former for the latter.
There is a direct correlation between appearance and effectiveness especially related to physical endeavors. And with respect to being physically fit, it demonstrates a level of personal discipline that is a hallmark of warrior effectiveness. If a person is undisciplined in maintaining top physical health and appearance, they will more likely be undisciplined in other things.
I suppose you can make some case that in more modern tech warfare this is not as important, but then again there is a personal discipline component. We have a similar issue with law enforcement with out of shape, overweight and weak officers that cannot effectively deal with criminals that resist arrest... but that are just unhealthy in general.
One way to look at this... the US invests a lot of money in training military personnel and allowing them unhealthy personal practices risks them not being able to perform in their role.
I half agree with Hegseth.
My father taught me, “Don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot. Don’t shoot at anything you don’t intend to kill.” I think we should approach warfare similarly. My father’s point was not, “Only use this gun for rampaging mass murder.” It was, “Guns are serious. Handle them with respect. Use them with circumspection.”
I agree with Hegseth that when we go to war, we should be willing to go all out. Atrocities should never be Plan A, but it’s pretty easy for any adversary to engineer circumstances wherein we can’t win without killing civilians. We should kill as many as are needed to win, and no more.
Where I bet I disagree with Hegseth is the corollary: that if the goal is not important enough to be worth killing people, even innocent ones if necessary, then we shouldn’t go to war in the first place. War is very, very bad. There are things even worse than war, and we should be willing to fight to prevent those things. But we must weigh such decisions with great care and the most wisdom we can muster.
I have yet to see any evidence of wisdom from Peter Hegseth.
This is satire, right? Babylon Bee stuff. "The warrior ethos is no way to run an army?" HA! Hilarious.
The other tag line option would be: "A hugging, harm-reduction and carrying ethos is needed to win wars!"
I’d suggest reading Clausewitz’s characterization of Scharnhorst, architect of Prussia’s military regeneration, to illustrate how a warrior appearance has little to do with military efficacy.
The question is not a “caring” ethos against the warrior, but a matter of substance versus appearance. Hegseth is sacrificing the former for the latter.
There is a direct correlation between appearance and effectiveness especially related to physical endeavors. And with respect to being physically fit, it demonstrates a level of personal discipline that is a hallmark of warrior effectiveness. If a person is undisciplined in maintaining top physical health and appearance, they will more likely be undisciplined in other things.
I suppose you can make some case that in more modern tech warfare this is not as important, but then again there is a personal discipline component. We have a similar issue with law enforcement with out of shape, overweight and weak officers that cannot effectively deal with criminals that resist arrest... but that are just unhealthy in general.
One way to look at this... the US invests a lot of money in training military personnel and allowing them unhealthy personal practices risks them not being able to perform in their role.