By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In his book, Hegseth recounts an instance where he directly contradicted military briefings, instructing his platoon to engage and eliminate any perceived threats, disregarding what he deemed as “bullshit rules.” The article highlights Hegseth’s disdain for regulations, as seen in his criticism of rules he felt were arbitrarily enforced, potentially endangering soldiers for the sake of international approval. Hegseth often lauded his commander, Colonel Michael Steele, who later faced reprimand for reportedly issuing orders to eliminate all military-aged males during a raid.
Read the original article here
It’s truly something else, isn’t it? Pete Hegseth, the man who built a career on hawkish commentary and unwavering support for military action, seems to have found himself in a rather uncomfortable position when questions about the boat strikes started being asked. He didn’t expect to have to explain away what appears to be an obvious war crime.
Pete Hegseth’s reaction when confronted with questions about the boat strikes is a masterclass in obfuscation and deflection. You get the sense he’s trying to wriggle out of a situation he never anticipated being in, and the results are, to put it mildly, entertaining. His immediate instinct seems to be to point the finger elsewhere, to distance himself from the decisions made, and to generally create a smokescreen of plausible deniability. The “golly, ask Pete” approach from Trump puts him squarely in the hot seat, and Hegseth’s response, blaming an admiral, is a telling move. It certainly doesn’t look like he’s taking responsibility for anything.
Digging into Hegseth’s past statements, we find some particularly interesting nuggets. He confidently stated, “I watched it live. We knew exactly who was in that boat, we knew exactly what they were doing, and we knew exactly who they represented.” That, combined with his claim that everything was “very well understood” before the strike, paints a clear picture of his initial perspective. It doesn’t exactly mesh with his current attempts to distance himself from the fallout. He seems terrified by the implications.
The narrative only gets more complicated when you delve into his subsequent comments. Hegseth claimed he was too busy to stay and watch the entire process unfold. “I didn’t stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs, so I moved on to my next meeting,” he said. The implication? He wasn’t involved in the critical decisions after the initial strike. But then he goes on to say he supports the decision of the admiral. So was he involved or not? It seems that he wants to have it both ways: supportive of the action, but removed from any potential blame. The level of contortion required is frankly astounding.
The speed with which Hegseth sought to absolve himself is striking. It appears he wants to distance himself from this alleged war crime. The whole thing just feels fishy. There’s the claim that it took one to two hours to spot any survivors. During that time, Hegseth was apparently busy elsewhere, conveniently placing him away from any potential culpability. Does he think the fog of war actually blinded them from seeing survivors? What seems more likely is his attempt to deflect blame. It’s a classic case of the guilty mind.
Hegseth’s attempts to frame the events are also telling. His rhetoric has always been about strength and decisive action. Now, faced with accusations of wrongdoing, he seems desperate to avoid any personal accountability. This is especially true when it comes to any alleged violations of the Geneva Convention.
The pressure on Hegseth is only going to mount. His defenses, which have relied on blaming others and downplaying his involvement, will become increasingly unsustainable. The questions will get tougher. The scrutiny will intensify. And he will be left with little recourse other than to continue attempting to distract and deny, while everyone else sees right through it.
It’s hard not to notice the irony in his pronouncements. He was in the room because it was so important, but then he left for another meeting. He wants us to buy “oh I wasn’t in the room actually?”. It’s so pathetic. His previous statements seem to suggest that he would support this kind of action. It’s fully unsurprising that he’s now doing it.
The entire situation seems to be revealing of an attempt to protect the brass. Hegseth’s eagerness to support the admiral, even in the face of potentially illegal orders, speaks volumes. It’s a strategy designed to protect the administration, even if it means throwing a few people under the bus. But even that strategy can be undermined when the press is able to make a direct connection to Hegseth. The public is not foolish, and they are not buying the carefully constructed narrative of detachment.
It’s also worth noting the broader political context. The discussion has broadened to include the fact that “Trump is fully asleep.” The fact that Trump is being seen as asleep during coverage of this situation is a glaring indicator of how seriously the administration is taking the situation.
It’s clear that the stakes are high, and the implications of this incident are significant. The lack of accountability would be concerning. However, the apparent efforts to deflect responsibility and protect the higher-ups are just as problematic. This is not just about the actions taken during the boat strikes; it’s about the erosion of trust, the abuse of power, and the willingness to sacrifice principles for political expediency.