The Senate failed to Ask Hegseth The Hard Questions
STRATEGY CENTRAL
By And For Practitioners
By Monte Erfourth – January 16, 2025
Introduction
Pete Hegseth's appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 14, 2025, as a nominee for Secretary of Defense, sparked significant debate over his qualifications, vision, and preparedness for the role. While his testimony strongly emphasized readiness, modernization, and the restoration of a "warrior ethos," it also exposed critical gaps in his experience and understanding of complex global defense challenges. Hegseth presented himself as a disruptor, aiming to reform a bureaucratic Pentagon, but his polarizing statements and limited strategic depth left senators questioning his ability to lead the Department of Defense in an era defined by great power competition.
This analysis delves into Hegseth’s testimony, highlighting his policy priorities and leadership philosophy while comparing his approach to the established strategies of his predecessors, notably Secretary Jim Mattis. The contrasts underscore a broader concern: while Hegseth offers a compelling narrative of change, his lack of experience and nuanced understanding of defense complexities could hinder his ability to execute his vision effectively. The testimony ultimately revealed a candidate whose ambitions may outpace his readiness for the challenges ahead.
Opening Statement
Hegseth's opening statement emphasized his military background, gratitude for the nomination, and a clear commitment to restoring the "warrior ethos" within the Department of Defense. He framed his nomination as a necessary disruption to the status quo, stating, "Returning the Pentagon back to warfighting is my job." His statements focused on the military's core mission: readiness, lethality, and accountability.
This initial framing resonated with conservative members of the committee who value a back-to-basics approach to military operations. However, his language also sparked controversy, particularly regarding comments that hinted at a departure from current diversity and equity initiatives.
Hegseth’s leadership philosophy was oriented toward practicality and emphasized his personal experience as a warfighter as his principal guiding light as a leader.
Emphasize experience-driven leadership with a focus on warfighters and their needs.
Set clear goals, empower capable personnel, and hold leaders accountable for results.
Advocate for "peace through strength," ensuring the U.S. military is unmatched and prepared for conflict.
Hegseth’s vision departs from traditional Pentagon leadership. He offers a "boots-on-the-ground" perspective rooted in combat experience. He pledges to uphold the Constitution, collaborate with Congress, and prioritize the welfare of troops while securing America’s global position.
Policy Priorities
Hegseth outlined three main objectives:
1. Restoration of Warrior Ethos: He emphasized addressing recruitment and retention challenges by focusing on readiness and unity, rather than diversity metrics. His assertion, "Unity is our strength, not diversity," drew mixed reactions from the committee.
Revitalize the military's culture by emphasizing warfighting, lethality, and readiness.
Address recruitment, retention, and readiness issues by fostering unity and shared purpose.
Set high standards for performance and merit-based leadership while eliminating divisive politics from military matters.
2. Modernization of Military Capabilities: Hegseth highlighted the urgent need to modernize the nuclear triad, streamline acquisition processes, and integrate emerging technologies. He pledged to reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, referencing the "Valley of Death" between experimental prototypes and production.
Modernize the military by reviving the defense industrial base and reforming acquisition processes.
Focus on emerging technologies, nuclear triad modernization, and ensuring the Pentagon can pass audits.
Match military capabilities to evolving threats and eliminate bureaucratic inefficiencies.
3. Re-establishing Deterrence: He proposed a robust focus on countering Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific and rebuilding alliances to ensure global stability. He framed deterrence as a cornerstone of his strategy, stating, "We need real deterrence, not reputational deterrence."
Strengthen homeland defense, including securing borders and airspace.
Partner with allies to counter aggression, particularly from China in the Indo-Pacific.
Reallocate resources by responsibly ending wars and focusing on larger geopolitical challenges.
More Criticism & Praise Than An Inquiry Into Defense Challenges
Financial Mismanagement: Several senators raised concerns about Hegseth's leadership of Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America, citing deficits and alleged financial mismanagement. Hegseth defended his record, emphasizing his commitment to mission execution and attributing financial challenges to external factors, such as donor volatility during the 2008 financial crisis. He framed his leadership as decisive, pointing to letters of support from colleagues attesting to his character.
Diversity and Inclusion. Hegseth faced sharp criticism for past comments opposing DEI initiatives and questioning the role of women in combat. His statements, including, "Standards must remain high," were viewed as dismissive of the contributions of women and minorities in the military. Despite acknowledging the value of all servicemembers, his tone left many senators unconvinced of his commitment to fostering an inclusive military culture.
Personal Conduct. Questions about allegations of alcohol abuse and inappropriate behavior were met with denials and assertions of a "coordinated smear campaign." Hegseth maintained that these accusations lacked credibility and were politically motivated. His responses aimed to refocus attention on his qualifications and vision.
Women in Combat Roles. Hegseth's testimony on this topic was a focal point of contention. While he acknowledged the contributions of women in the military, his past statements, such as, "Women in combat roles haven’t made us more effective," raised concerns about his stance. Senators pressed him to reconcile these views with the reality of a modern, diverse military. Hegseth pledged to ensure standards remain high but faced skepticism about his ability to lead inclusively.
Advocacy for Warfighters. Hegseth’s support for pardoning servicemembers convicted of war crimes was another divisive issue. Critics argued that his stance undermined the rule of law and military discipline. Hegseth defended his position by prioritizing warfighter welfare and navigating the balance between legality and lethality.
Interaction with Senators
The exchanges between Hegseth and senators highlighted a partisan divide. Republican members praised his focus on readiness and efficiency, while Democrats questioned his qualifications and temperament. Sadly, while some Senators focused on questions about the duties of Secretary of Defense, far too many were excessively focused on Hegseth’s personal failings or offered overly simplistic questions (more like statements). The questions asked did not explore how he would address difficult issues, leaving Americans with limited insight into Hegseth's perspectives on the matters expected to be significant during his time as Secretary. At times, this was an embarrassment for the Senate.
Key moments included:
Senator Shaheen pressing Hegseth on his comments about women in combat.
Senator Reed challenging his stance on DEI and the rule of law.
Senator Gillibrand emphasized the need for inclusive leadership.
Hegseth’s responses maintained the "meritocracy and lethality" theme, but his deflections left many critical questions unanswered. For an excellent synopsis of missed topics, read David Brooks’ article in the NY Times.
Outlining His Strategic Vision
Hegseth articulated a vision for addressing the challenges of great power competition, mainly focusing on China as the foremost threat to U.S. national security. He underscored the necessity of redirecting resources and strategic priorities toward the Indo-Pacific region, aligning with the 2017 National Defense Strategy. Hegseth called for strengthening alliances in the Indo-Pacific region, such as bolstering ties with Japan, South Korea, and Australia, while maintaining a strong deterrent posture to counter China's military buildup and aggressive actions in the South China Sea.
A central pillar of his strategic vision involved modernizing the defense industrial base to ensure the United States remains technologically and militarily dominant. Hegseth highlighted the importance of accelerating the adoption of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, hypersonics, and autonomous systems. By cutting through bureaucratic inefficiencies, he argued, the Department of Defense could ensure these innovations reach warfighters faster and more effectively. He also stressed the need for economic and diplomatic tools to complement military efforts in curbing China's influence globally.
Hegseth also acknowledged the importance of adapting U.S. military strategy to prepare for multi-domain conflicts, emphasizing readiness across land, air, sea, cyber, and space domains. His vision included reinforcing the nuclear triad and expanding missile defense capabilities to deter both China and Russia. While his approach to addressing these threats was generally well-received by Republican senators, concerns about his ability to manage the complexities of great power competition without prior experience leading large organizations persisted. Nonetheless, Hegseth’s prioritization of strategic clarity and technological advancement demonstrated an understanding of the evolving global security landscape.
While much of this is in alignment with national security experts, his lack of experience managing large, complex organizations like the Department of Defense raised doubts about his ability to execute these plans effectively. He was well prepared for four hours of grueling interrogation; how much of what he said is deeply internalized by him is impossible to say.
Mattis vs. Hegseth: Strategic Contrasts
Since the Mattis National Defense Strategy has been invoked, it seems natural to compare Hegseth to a recent Secretary. As Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis brought a disciplined and deeply informed strategy rooted in decades of experience to the Pentagon. His strategy emphasized a clear, global framework to address China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and terrorism. Mattis focused on reinvigorating alliances, enhancing readiness, and ensuring a well-balanced approach to modernizing the military. His leadership was marked by a commitment to fiscal responsibility and alignment with global partners to counter adversaries effectively.
Mattis’s strategy involved strengthening NATO and Pacific partnerships, signaling resolve against adversaries while maintaining a deterrent stance. He understood the nuances of military operations and global diplomacy, leveraging his background as a Marine Corps general and his expertise in strategic planning. During his tenure, progress was made in cyber defense, addressing readiness shortfalls and balancing immediate threats with long-term modernization goals.
In contrast, Pete Hegseth’s vision for the Department of Defense differs significantly in tone and approach. While both emphasize readiness and modernization, Hegseth focuses heavily on an "America First" philosophy and less on coalition-building. He is in for a shock when he finds out how important allies and partners are for maintaining a global U.S. military footprint and military force ready for conflict everywhere, all the time. His testimony reflected a prioritization of countering China but lacked the global framework underpinning Mattis’s strategy. Where Mattis brought a nuanced understanding of great power competition, Hegseth’s approach seemed more reactionary, framed by a desire to disrupt bureaucratic inertia without clearly articulated solutions.
Unlike Mattis, who entered the Pentagon with decades of military leadership and familiarity with defense processes, Hegseth’s background lacks comparable depth. Mattis’s "dust on his boots" stemmed from years of command experience and firsthand knowledge of complex military operations. His global strategy was well-honed, balancing military strength with diplomatic engagement. Hegseth, by contrast, enters with limited experience in managing large organizations and without a deeply established strategic philosophy. His emphasis on restoring the warrior ethos is a compelling narrative but may fall short when addressing the intricate dynamics of modern defense challenges.
Hegseth faces the monumental task of leading the Department of Defense in an era of great power competition. Yet, he does so without the depth of knowledge, experience, or strategic insight that characterized Mattis’s leadership. While Hegseth’s priorities align with a desire for change, his lack of expertise raises questions about his ability to navigate the complexities of countering adversaries like China and Russia, addressing domestic and global challenges while running the world’s largest bureaucracy and working for a Commander in Chief unfettered by criminality for the orders he issues to DoD.
Conclusion
Hegseth's testimony reflected a candidate deeply aligned with former President Trump’s "America First" philosophy. This appealed to conservative audiences and alienated democrats by design. In turn, the Democrats did themselves a few favors in their often sophomoric attempt to make an imperfect man look a little worse, leaving enormously important questions untouched. This left Hegseth looking more polished and capable while avoiding the scrutiny he should have faced.
Even fervent partisans would be right to worry about Hegseth’s ability to survive, much less excel as Secretary. Choosing a combat-experienced Major as a nominee to run the DoD is like the Ford Motor Company pulling an employee off the assembly line to be CEO. Which senator would bet big on Ford in this scenario? This is not to disparage any Major, anyone with combat experience, or anyone working the line at Ford. It is merely a common sense observation that not all types of experience translate in all situations.
Perhaps if Major (USA Ret) Hegseth had a bit more experience, he might have recognized the parallels between his "warrior ethos" and the French philosophy during World War I. The French belief in élan and the "cult of the offensive" was rooted in an idealistic confidence that soldiers' moral superiority and fighting spirit could decisively overcome material disadvantages and technological realities in warfare. This doctrine was grounded in Henri Bergson's concept of élan vital, which emphasizes intuition and vitality. The French military doctrine glorified the offensive, considering the bravery and aggressive spirit of the infantry as the ultimate determinants of victory.
However, this approach failed to consider the increasingly defensive nature of warfare, which was marked by entrenched positions and the use of machine guns and artillery. The disastrous results of early French offensives in 1914, particularly the massive casualties from futile frontal assaults, highlighted the shortcomings of this doctrine. An overreliance on sheer willpower and a disregard for modern tactical innovations led to catastrophic losses (the red pants did not help). This situation revealed the fundamental flaw of prioritizing ideology over practical military strategy.
The French experience exposes the counterintuitive relationship between combat experience and strategic thinking. Your world gets really small when in the Iraq or Afghanistan situation Hegseth experienced. You pay attention to details you never would in a class or board room. Leaving the operational world behind and joining a major COCOM or Joint Staff offers a chance to exponentially expand your understanding of the situation as you experience the shock of developing country, regional, and theater strategic plans and then jumping to global military strategy. All the tactical and operational experience is of little help in contemplating the relative issues between and among theaters and the political demands that shape the military requirements between them.
Solving global-level military problems is an entry-level experience necessary to understand how the Joint Force determines resourcing priorities and establishes viable courses of action that achieve global and theater political aims through military action. These are Clausewitz to Max Weber-level problems and well beyond. Even the vaunted military genius General Robert E. Lee did not have to think at this level. To know Clausewitz well is to know Major Hegseth is in no way prepared on "day one" to understand, much less lead, the DoD on a better strategic path.
Despite the Senator’s frequent and frustratingly off-the-mark questions, Pete Hegseth's congressional testimony illuminated just enough of his vision for the Department of Defense to allow for a cursory examination. While his focus on readiness, modernization, and accountability addressed several critical challenges, he also overestimates the impact DEI and other culture-war issues have on military strategy, lethality, and modernization. He might be the best cultural warrior for the job, but It is painfully obvious that he is not the best national security pick for this job.
Although it feels irresponsible to say this, Hegseth’s polarizing views on diversity and clear moral failings are not significant concerns for Americans to fixate on. Nuclear war, the impact of AI on short and long-term defense matters, the dearth of solutions for terrorism, competing with an axis of autocrats, a declining number of candidates for recruitment, the 2024 Congressional report declaring the DoD unprepared for conflict, and modernizing the DoD without getting fierce and talented pushback from corporations and Congress are not the issues you want a cabinet-level novice tackling. The Senate collectively failed to test him on these subjects. As a result, he will likely be our next Secretary of Defense.
Hegseth is a talented speaker with a convincing collection of buzzwords that will play well with uninformed audiences. “Peace through strength” is simply another way of saying “Reputational Deterrence” (which Hegseth denounced in his statement), and “warrior ethos” is necessary at the unit and army level but can lead to disaster if relied on at the strategic level. He may be quick with sound bites and a polished White House Pitbull posturing as a “born again hard” loyalist, but Hegseth cannot talk his way past what he does not know. America should not pay the price required for Hegseth’s steep learning curve.
The Bottom Line: We desperately need a leader of Secretary Mattis’s caliber and experience, not a trainee.
Bibliography
"Stenographic Transcript Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate: Confirmation Hearing on the Expected Nomination of Mr. Peter B. Hegseth to Be Secretary of Defense," January 14, 2025.
Hegseth, Pete. The War on Warriors: My Fight for the Soul of the U.S. Military. HarperCollins, 2019.
U.S. Department of Defense, "2023 Demographics Report: Profile of the Military Community," 2023.
Shaheen, Jeanne. "Statement on Women, Peace, and Security Act," U.S. Senate, 2024.
Gillibrand, Kirsten. "Combatting Sexual Assault in the Military," U.S. Senate, 2023.
https://www.jhiblog.org/2021/09/13/elan-vital-and-the-french-cult-of-the-offensive/
