The guy Hegseth/Trump have in charge of the new tests for military officer promotion doesn’t have the basic experience to know how to judge competence at high officer levels. When speaking about the current process, he says things that are just wrong.
The historical example Hegseth cites as what inspired him was an exercise to test maneuver and communications capability, not as a test for promotions. It was only used to evaluate commanders as a secondary element.
A lot of the things Hegseth says is needed to evaluate high level officers, are already done…he talks as if he is not aware of this. Is he ignorant, or/and is the point to these tests something else?
In justifying the new policy, multiple things Hegseth said about US military history was inaccurate.
Secretary of Defense Hegseth has been firing top military people based on whether he thinks their politics align with his. And, he is firing well respected people with great experience.
The first day of the war the US slaughtered Iranian girls in a girls school. This was hopefully a legitimate mistake, but, the US has the obligation to acknowledge what happened and explain it to the public. Instead, Hegseth and Trump refuse to talk about it.
Hegseth may have done his job well when he was in the military, but he did not have the experience to be Secretary of Defense. He also doesn’t have the personality to be Secretary of Defense. He had problems with alcohol, with his own finances, and regularly publicly spoke like a biased reactionary partisan hack who buys into many falsehoods and exaggerations often told by Trump and his supporters.
Trump’s overzealous anti-DEI push in the military that has led to the canceling of promotions of mostly nonwhite straight males, may be hurting the military by decreasing the number of quality nonwhite straight males who want to serve in the military, as well as hurting their morale.
Shortly after the Trump administration removes the requirement for military personnel to get the flu shot, there is a flu outbreak among recruits.
Vaccines are a part of having the most proficient fighting force. A force vulnerable to a virus is a weaker force compared to one that is less vulnerable.
Flu outbreaks disrupt and weaken training when a large number of recruits are sick.
Was the navy secretary fired because he wasn’t hard enough on Senator Mark Kelly for stating what is the basic policy of the military on obeying illegal orders?
“In internal deliberations before the war’s launch, Hegseth had pointed to Iran’s muted reaction to Trump’s past attacks as evidence that calibrated force could impose costs on Tehran without triggering a broader war. Hegseth “was caught off guard. There’s no question,” says a person familiar with his thinking.”
If this is true, it is the height of incompetency. The US and Israeli attacks were not limited, they assassinated the leader of the country! The most likely response from Iran would be huge. Yet, the Trump administration seemed to have not expected this.
“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has taken steps to block or delay promotions for more than a dozen Black and female senior officers across all four branches of the military, some of whom are seen as having been targeted because of their race, gender or perceived affiliation with Biden administration policies or officials”
Hegseth’s speech really did sound like an SNL version of a Hegseth speech.
The administration is claiming multiple goals to this war. Trump telling the Iranian people that this is their chance, and then also saying he is looking for someone to put in charge, shouldn’t give the Iranians confidence to risk their lives and rebel. Although, I’m not sure they are seeing his comments.
“the goal of disrupting and deterring drug smuggling would not justify a policy of summarily executing criminal suspects without statutory authorization or any semblance of due process. That is why Trump is trying to justify his bloodthirsty anti-drug strategy by calling his targets “combatants” in a “non-international armed conflict”—a term he has stretched beyond recognition.
Congress has not recognized that purported “armed conflict,” and it is a counterintuitive label for the unilateral violence exemplified by the September 2 attack. The boat that Bradley destroyed, which reportedly “turned around before the attack started because the people onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it,” was not engaged in any sort of attack on American targets and offered no resistance. The same was true of the vessels destroyed in subsequent attacks on suspected drug boats
…
The violence in such attacks is so one-sided that the government’s lawyers claim blowing up drug boats does not constitute “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution because U.S. personnel face no plausible risk of casualties. So we are talking about an “armed conflict” that does not involve “hostilities” yet somehow does involve enemy “combatants.”
Unless you accept that baffling premise, the attempt to justify Bradley’s second strike under the law of war is incomprehensible. “Two U.S. officials have said the military intercepted radio communications from the survivors to suspected cartel members, raising the possibility that any drugs on the boat that had not burned up in the first blast could have been retrieved,” The New York Times reports. “The military, they said, interpreted the purported distress call as meaning the survivors were still ‘in the fight’ and so were not shipwrecked.”
In reality, of course, those men were not “in the fight” to begin with, because there was no “fight.” A unilateral act of aggression by U.S. forces hardly amounts to a battle, and it is hard to see how a radio call for help qualifies as the sort of “hostile act” that the Defense Department’s manual says excludes someone from “shipwrecked” status. To illustrate that exception, the manual notes that “shipwrecked persons do not include combatant personnel engaged in amphibious, underwater, or airborne attacks who are proceeding ashore.””
“While the renewed congressional interest in the legal and moral justification for Trump’s bloodthirsty anti-drug strategy is welcome, that inquiry should not be limited to the question of whether one particular attack violated the law of war.
The details of Bradley’s defense nevertheless illustrate the outrageous implications of conflating drug smuggling with violent aggression. He argues that the seemingly helpless men in the water, who were blown apart by a second missile while clinging to the boat’s smoldering wreckage, still posed a threat because they could have recovered and delivered whatever cocaine might have remained after the first strike.
…
In reality, there was no “fight” to stay in. The violence exemplified by this attack is so one-sided that the government’s lawyers claim blowing up drug boats does not constitute “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution because U.S. personnel face no plausible risk of casualties. So we are talking about an “armed conflict” that does not involve “hostilities” yet somehow does involve enemy “combatants”—who, contrary to that label, are not actually engaged in combat.
…
Bradley seems to have determined that the flailing men were engaged in a “hostile act” simply by existing near a boat remnant that might have contained salvageable cocaine. As ridiculous as that position is, it is only a bit more risible than Trump’s assertion that supplying cocaine to Americans amounts to “an armed attack against the United States” that justifies a lethal military response.
…
“There is a risk that the focus on the second strike and specifically the talk of ‘war crimes’ feeds into the administration’s false wartime framing and veils the fact that the entire boat-strikes campaign is murder, full stop,” Cardozo School of Law professor Rebecca Ingber, an expert on the law of war, told The New York Times. “The administration’s evolving justification for the second strike only lays bare the absurdity of their legal claims for the campaign as a whole—that transporting drugs is somehow the equivalent of wartime hostilities.””