By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Tuesday meeting with generals, which focused on implementing a “warrior ethos” and enforcing grooming and physical fitness standards, was widely criticized by attendees. Multiple generals expressed that the event was a waste of resources, with some describing it as a press conference rather than a productive briefing. Hegseth also addressed the department’s mission of “warfighting” while simultaneously announcing changes to the Inspector General and Equal Opportunity processes. Sources cited in a Daily Mail report described Hegseth’s recent behavior as “manic” and “obsessed” with security, which is placing a strain on the Army agency responsible for his protection.
Read the original article here
Generals Reportedly Criticize Being Flown From Around The World To Meeting With Hegseth: ‘Total Waste Of Money’
The reaction from top military brass to the recent meeting, where they were reportedly flown in from around the globe to attend a session led by a former Fox News host, is quite telling. The sentiment seems to be universally critical, with many feeling that the entire event was a monumental waste of resources, specifically taxpayer dollars. The frustration is palpable, and one can easily imagine the annoyance of seasoned professionals being pulled away from their duties to attend what was perceived as a glorified pep talk. The core of the complaint centers around the blatant inefficiency and lack of purpose. A virtual meeting, or even a well-crafted email, would have sufficed, according to several sources. The expense of transporting so many high-ranking officers, coupled with the security protocols required, highlights a stunning lack of consideration for financial responsibility.
The perceived lack of substance in the presentation itself further fueled the discontent. The meeting, described by some as more of a press conference, was reportedly heavy on theatricality and light on actionable information. The fact that a former television personality, someone without a military background, was the main speaker, is a significant point of contention. Senior military leaders, who have dedicated their lives to service and have faced combat situations, were subjected to what many viewed as shallow rhetoric. This perceived lack of respect for their experience and expertise undoubtedly added to the feeling of being undervalued. The focus on cultural warfare and perceived “wokeness” also likely grated on some attendees. The implication that the military needs to be “fixed” by someone with no relevant experience is deeply insulting to those who have dedicated their lives to the defense of the nation.
The optics of the situation are also important. The world was watching, and what they saw was, in some estimations, a circus. The image of top military officials being lectured by an unqualified person does not inspire confidence. This event has the potential to erode the credibility of the United States military on the world stage. The internal morale within the military may have also taken a hit. Being lectured by someone who has little understanding of military principles and experience can demoralize anyone, especially those who may have been told “no” when requesting for more crucial equipment like better body armor or more bullets for their soldiers.
The fact that many of the officers felt that they couldn’t speak out on their frustrations in that moment is an important consideration. They are the ones who have to follow orders, and they are the ones who may have to implement them in the field. The pressure to conform to political dictates can be immense, but the silence of these generals, despite their obvious misgivings, highlights the tightrope walk that military leaders must navigate in times of political turmoil. The meeting’s focus on potentially divisive issues also presents a problem. It creates a climate of distrust and division, which can make it difficult to maintain the unity and cohesion necessary for an effective fighting force. This is a far cry from the kind of professionalism and leadership we should expect from those who lead our armed forces.
The meeting’s impact could extend beyond the immediate participants. The perception that the current administration is unserious and wasteful could have a ripple effect throughout the military, potentially impacting recruitment, retention, and overall readiness. The longer-term implications are even more concerning. The idea of undermining the military’s apolitical nature can have serious consequences for a democratic society. Ultimately, the incident underscores a concerning trend of political interference in military affairs. It raises the question of how far this interference will go and what the ultimate cost will be. It’s a situation that demands scrutiny and careful consideration, and it’s easy to see why many in the military are expressing such strong disapproval.