As you know, Pete Hegseth was just appointed Secretary of War by Donald Trump. His hard-charging approach on military operations and his wariness of “warrior culture”—in the military and Veterans Affairs—has been electrifyingly controversial. His proposals indicate a fundamental change to the way we approach military engagement, calling for a much more brutal style of warfare. Hegseth contends that America currently operates with “one hand tied behind its back” due to legal constraints, oversight, and societal distractions.
In his new role, Hegseth has vocalized his desire to implement what he describes as a “warrior culture” within the U.S. military. He claims this cultural change is key to the country successfully taking the fight to its adversaries. As he argued, the present DOD military paradigm limits ability to act quickly and decisively in combat scenario.
Hegseth’s disreputable tactics were just recently spotlighted after news of his meddling in classified military discussions surfaced. He allegedly shared extremely sensitive plans to bomb Yemen over a group chat. Naturally, this revelation caused alarm over the security of sensitive military information and the dangers posed by its unauthorized release.
Even more alarming, Hegseth has allegedly ordered US military executions of Venezuelans, as well as other severe military actions against targets in the Caribbean Sea. Eyewitness accounts and internal communications indicate that he personally advocated for a shoot to kill policy. This position continued even when survivors were clearly not a threat. These instructions have resulted in potential war crime allegations, especially regarding attacks on Venezuelan vessels.
The repercussions of these actions have led to a scathing Inspector General Report investigating Hegseth’s mishandling of key classified data.
Findings
This report raises the alarm about grave breaches in protocol. It further poses troubling questions about the ethical and legal implications of his military tactics. Opponents of his strategy warn that it would vent unnecessary increases in violence and damage the U.S.’s image abroad by betraying its commitment to human rights.
Hegseth is clearly maneuvering his new post with gusto. At the same time, military leaders, politicians and human rights activists intensely discuss the consequences of his autocratic leadership. We go beyond analyzing the short-term impacts of his policies. We equally look at the effects of these actions on the long-term U.S. military and global standing.