Insubordinate Generals and Senior Officers Publicly Attack the Secretary of War
Anonymous but public criticisms topped by massive hypocrisy
Trump derangement syndrome and its variant, Hegseth derangement syndrome (HDS), continue to infect an undetermined number of victims in the military. Like the original affliction, this new strain of is a debilitating malady that deprives the aggrieved victim of the ability to think and act rationally. Like the sufferers of TDS who warn the country that Trump is politicizing the justice system by investigating and prosecuting some who have opposed him, the HDS symptoms can include a total lack of self-awareness that it is their own actions that are the problem. It leads the sufferers into behavior that, had they had not lost their wits, they would recognize as highly improper, even destructive.
The generals bellyache, publicly but anonymously.
The latest manifestation of HDS is documented by The Washington Times in “‘He lost us’: Generals, senior officers say trust in Hegseth has evaporated.” In it, The Times serves as a vehicle for anonymous generals and other “senior officers” to lambast and denigrate Secretary of War Pete Hegseth following his October speech at Quantico. The lede sets the tone:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has lost the trust and respect of some top military commanders, with his public “grandstanding” widely seen as unprofessional and the personnel moves made by the former cable TV host leading to an unprecedented and dangerous exodus of talent from the Pentagon, said current senior military officers and current and former Defense Department officials.
Numerous high-ranking officers painted Mr. Hegseth’s Sept. 30 speech to hundreds of generals and admirals gathered at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia as a turning point in how his leadership style, attitude and overall competency are viewed in the upper echelons of the U.S. armed forces.
“It was a massive waste of time. … one current Army general told The Washington Times.”
Let’s take a look at some of the attacks that the generals and other senior officers make. The “current general” quoted in the article’s title anoints himself to speak for all the generals in the military: “If he ever had us, he lost us.”
Huh? “IF he ever had us ….”? Translation: “We probably never supported him, but now we sure don’t.”
The informants lament the “unprecedented chaos” in the Pentagon evidenced by a “level of turnover among high-ranking officers … not seen in recent history.” However, they appear blissfully oblivious to the fact that it is precisely high-ranking anonymous complainers such as themselves, who demonstrate the need for a thorough housecleaning in the Pentagon. That includes General If-He-Ever-Had-Us.
The complainers grouse that Secretary Hegseth has a “seeming obsession with reversing the woke military policies of past administrations.” They describe him as “viewing the job through the lens of a junior officer, which has often led him to fixate on issues that otherwise could be left to the services or lower-ranking officials.” He is engaged in “grandstanding,” “theater,” and as a “current senior officer” wants everyone to know, “mainly what I see for him are not serious things. It’s internal politics and drama. That’s mostly what I see.” According to another anonymous “current senior officer,” all this shows that the Secretary is presiding over the “opposite of a meritocracy.”
Mr. Secretary, don’t you dare lecture us about problems that we failed to correct.
One of the complainers’ principal criticisms is that Secretary Hegseth has what one of them labeled “the mentality of a midgrade officer” who lectured the generals about “fitness, grooming standards and other issues that typically don’t reach the desk of the defense secretary.” One “current army general” felt compelled to be quoted about the lax grooming standards by saying that it’s “not about f--- haircuts.”
Lax fitness and grooming standards. Could he be talking about this guy?
The anonymous generals and other unnamed “senior officers” are like the proverbial prodigal son who killed his parents and then pleaded for mercy because he was an orphan. They are the authors of that which they now complain.
They are correct that such matters ordinarily are not addressed at the Secretary’s level. But Hegseth was compelled to address them because many of these things, such as grooming and physical fitness standards, have not been adequately addressed at lower levels. Some say that the problem has reached endemic levels in some units. If all these generals had rigorously enforced high standards, then the Secretary of War would not have to do so. This was the Secretary telling his generals to get on the job.
Rank insubordination from a coterie of cowards
The anonymous generals who trash the Secretary of War reveal their hearts by engaging in rank insubordination while hiding their identities. The Washington Times says it was because “of their concern that they would be fired for providing their honest assessments.” No, their anonymity is a reflection of their cowardice, not their commitment to truth.
If a serving officer disagrees with an order or policy, he has two courses of action: He may express his disagreements privately to his commander or superior officer and then diligently obey if his senior disagrees. Or, he can resign if he believes that it is critical for the public to hear his views. Then he can voice his criticisms publicly. But not before.
These senior officers’ failure to follow either acceptable option violates fundamental principles of military leadership. Officers and NCOs are routinely given orders or required to implement policies that that they may question. But once their dissenting views have been heard, their duty is to pass on and implement the order as if it were their own. That is fundamental to military leadership.
For example, if a company commander disagreed with his battalion commander’s attack plan and his objections are overruled, try to imagine the effect on ‘good order and discipline’ if he were to tell his subordinates, ‘Well, I disagree with the order to conduct this attack at night, but the colonel is making us do it. He’s bucking for a star so it’s all about him.’ Not only would this make the attack more likely to fail, but it would assure his relief from command if his colonel found out what he said.
In this case, the Secretary has publicly announced his and the Administration’s positions. The complainers apparently disagree with many. But now that the Secretary has made these positions public, all these officers have a straightforward duty: Keep their disagreement to themselves until they retire. They violate that duty when they grouse to the media about their superior officer.
Are these generals and senior officers courting a felony?
By criticizing the Secretary’s policies publicly and casting aspersions on his fitness for the office he holds, these officers are flaunting both fundamental leadership principles and long-established military tradition, while simultaneously displaying their unfitness to serve. But their conduct also may be a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Article 88 of the UCMJ provides that “any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words” against senior officials, including the Secretary of Defense, “shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Nota bene: Truth of the statement is not a defense; contemptuous words suffice regardless of intent.
Article 134, called the “General Article,” proscribes “disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces [and] all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”
Violations of either Article are punishable by up to a year in prison, dismissal from the service, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
The generals’ comments for publication by The Washington Times are not just improper criticisms of policy decisions. Many also are personalized attacks on the Secretary and appear to cross the line into the circle of “contemptuous words.” Readers can decide whether any of these comments by generals and other senior officers either constitute “contemptuous words” directed against the Secretary or whether they are prejudicial to “good order and discipline:”
“It was a massive waste of time. … If he ever had us, he lost us.”
“The theater of it all is below our institutions. . . . They don’t have to be announced on stage in public in this grandstanding kind of way.”
“High-level sources said that they believe Mr. Hegseth is simultaneously doing deep damage to the military. . . .”
“Across the services, we are bleeding talent, talented generals and flag officers, for what appears to be the opposite of a meritocracy.”
“It seems like it’s all about one guy here.”
“Mainly what I see from him are not serious things. It’s . . . internal politics and drama. That’s mostly what I see.”
The Secretary of War has “the mentality of a midgrade officer.”
“I hope all this is temporary. Who knows how long he’ll be in the position and how much damage he can do.”
The Secretary has options
The Secretary has a number of options if the rebellious officers can be identified. One is to issue letters of reprimand, which would trigger a grade determination board to decide whether they should be retired at their current rank or at a lower rank. Another is to convene an Article 32 investigation to determine if they should be referred for trial by general court-martial. A third is offer them non-judicial punishment under Article 15, which they could refuse if they preferred to be tried by court martial.
If a junior officer serving under any of these complaining senior officers had complained to a newspaper that their commanding general was “doing deep damage to the military,” had “the mentality of a midgrade officer,” and was engaged in “grandstanding,” “theatrics,” and “drama,” that officer would be relieved, court martialed and likely cashiered from the military with head-spinning speed.
But these same senior officers, who would not tolerate such conduct for an instant if it were directed against them, feel free to trash the Secretary of War and escape the consequences. Should not they be judged by the same standards?
What a bunch of hypocrites.
I'm actually shocked these flag officers would voice these comments, even anonymously. I knew the services were getting bad, but I had no idea the rot had spread so far and deep.
I concur, John. Secretary Hegseth's very public address to the officer and enlisted leadership of our military was indeed dramatic, AS APPROPRIATE for a desperately needed change in the direction of the War Department's focus and culture. It was an address to OUR ADVERSARIES as well as to the War Department's leaders, and it was an address to the AMERICAN PUBLIC; as such, its public transmission was critically necessary. The blunt, uncompromising language Hegseth used must have offended many unworthy leaders in our military, and that is as it should be--and those unworthies should get out of their leadership positions immediately and make way for leaders who can make the extremely necessary changes with full devotion to the direction of our duly elected country's political leadership.