By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump authorized significant airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, marking a major escalation of US involvement in the Middle East. The operation was notable for its complete lack of pre-strike leaks, a stark contrast to previous incidents involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. This secrecy was celebrated by many, especially considering Hegseth’s involvement in the “Signalgate” scandal. However, some observers viewed the absence of leaks as a reflection on the administration’s overall competence regarding information security.
Read the original article here
MAGA takes a victory lap, celebrating Pete Hegseth’s supposed success in not leaking plans to bomb Iran. It’s a peculiar celebration, built on the foundation of a remarkably low bar. The entire episode highlights a concerning lack of competence and a disturbingly relaxed approach to national security within certain circles.
The celebratory mood centers around Hegseth’s alleged silence regarding a potential military strike. The implication, of course, is that he possessed sensitive information, and his failure to divulge it is somehow a triumph. This celebration speaks volumes about the warped expectations and standards within the MAGA sphere. Instead of focusing on strategic competence and robust security protocols, the focus is on the avoidance of a major gaffe, however accidental.
Many are quick to point out the absurdity of the situation. The very fact that this is considered a victory reveals a profound lack of understanding of what constitutes appropriate behavior for someone even tangentially involved in national security. The celebration isn’t about Hegseth’s proactive efforts to maintain confidentiality; it’s about him not accidentally stumbling into a leak. It’s the difference between being a competent professional and simply avoiding a catastrophic failure by sheer luck or lack of access.
The comments suggest a strong belief that Hegseth was never actually privy to the details of the planned strike. The idea of a high-level official being excluded from significant strategic military planning seems, to many, utterly ridiculous. Yet, this seems to be the most plausible explanation for the lack of a leak. The celebration becomes even more ironic in light of this possibility; it’s like praising someone for not spilling water they never held.
This perspective isn’t simply critical; it’s deeply concerned. The possibility that national security hinges on the accidental competence of an individual not involved in crucial planning is deeply alarming. The incident highlights a potential failure of proper security protocols and a culture that seems to reward the absence of incompetence rather than the presence of skill.
The reaction from the MAGA side underscores a disturbing trend. The low bar set for Hegseth reflects a broader issue of accepting minimal competence within leadership positions. The casual disregard for proper security procedures, evident in the celebration, is incredibly unsettling. This complacency in the face of potentially serious security breaches is a far bigger issue than the lack of a leak.
Adding to the absurdity, some suggest the military action was already widely anticipated, observed through online tracking of military movements. The idea that casual online sleuthing could uncover plans, which allegedly bypassed a senior official, raises serious questions about transparency and the effectiveness of existing security measures. If the details were already circulating publicly, perhaps Hegseth’s non-leak was less of a miracle and more of an irrelevant detail.
The whole situation becomes almost comedic in its absurdity. Comparing Hegseth’s actions to a child avoiding an accident with glue illustrates the remarkably low bar. The very fact that this constitutes a “victory” showcases a troubling perspective on competence and responsibility within national security discussions.
Even those within the MAGA community express internal doubts. The comments highlight a sense of disappointment and disillusionment, even mockery, directed at Hegseth. There’s a sense that the bar is perpetually so low that even avoiding a colossal blunder is deemed a noteworthy accomplishment. This breeds cynicism, undermining trust in the decision-making processes that govern national security.
The incident serves as a cautionary tale, demonstrating the perils of prioritizing loyalty over competence and celebrating the absence of failure over the achievement of success. It’s a stark reminder of the importance of rigorous security protocols, responsible leadership, and a more critical approach to assessing achievements, especially those concerning national security. In the end, the whole affair isn’t about Hegseth; it’s about the alarming standards and priorities of those celebrating his non-action.