By Matt Underwood ‘He lost us’: Generals, senior officers say trust in Hegseth has evaporated. It seems like the core sentiment revolves around a fundamental lack of trust in Hegseth from senior military leadership. The reaction suggests that this erosion of trust isn’t a new development, but rather a culmination of events, revealing that the relationship was likely built on shaky ground to begin with.
The narrative underscores how many senior officers questioned the basis for any initial trust in Hegseth. The argument highlights his limited military experience, primarily consisting of service in the National Guard and a single year in Iraq, painting him as ill-equipped to lead the complex US military. They clearly viewed his background as insufficient to advise the civilian Commander-in-Chief effectively.
The general consensus paints Hegseth as lacking the necessary qualifications for his position. The implication is that his past as a media personality and perceived lack of understanding of the military’s intricacies undermined any initial confidence. Many perceived him as a “desk jockey” lacking the practical, hands-on experience crucial for a leadership role of this magnitude.
Another significant aspect of the situation is the perception of Hegseth’s character. His perceived arrogance, bluster, and tendency towards theatrics seem to have alienated many in the military. It seems that senior officers, known for their ability to assess both competence and character, found him wanting. Many comments indicate that it was evident from the beginning that he wasn’t someone they could trust.
The discussion emphasizes the gravity of the situation. The US military is a highly complex organization. Any lack of trust at the highest levels can have severe ramifications. Some suggest the lack of trust could potentially influence the military’s willingness to execute orders they deem unlawful.
The comments also touch on potential motivations, pointing out that this loss of trust could be a signal to the public. There’s a suggestion that the military might be quietly resisting actions deemed unconstitutional. Some feel that those remaining within the military who uphold the constitution are the true heroes.
Further complicating the situation is the role of political leanings. It’s pointed out that the Washington Times, a right-leaning publication, is the source of the story, sparking discussion about the reliability of the source. While the content of the article is seen as significant and potentially hopeful, there is the acknowledgement of the publication’s potential biases and sensationalism.
The tone of the discussion conveys a sense of disbelief and a lack of respect for Hegseth. The comments express shock that he was trusted in the first place, and a resigned acceptance of his perceived shortcomings. The overarching theme is that this isn’t a sudden change, but a predictable outcome.
The discussion then touches on the implications of this loss of trust. Some of the commenters raise serious concerns about potential illegal orders. The implication is that this erosion of trust could hinder the execution of any such plans, or any future plans.
Finally, the discussion circles back to the core point: that Hegseth’s perceived shortcomings and the consequent lack of trust among senior military officials. The conclusion is that he failed to establish a credible basis for respect. The discussion ends with the question of why anyone in the military would have trusted Hegseth in the first place.