The resignation of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll should not overshadow some disturbing facts: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has fired or blocked the promotions of more than 80 generals and admirals, or about 10% of our nation’s top military officers. His personnel and policy decisions are threatening our long-term national security.
I served in the U.S. Navy for 29 years before retiring in 2015 as a rear admiral. The last thing I want is for Hegseth or our military to fail. But this is not a moment when America can afford to weaken its military, and that’s exactly what his wholesale actions are doing.
Nowhere is this more evident than his treatment of women.
Three times this year, including this past week, Hegseth personally struck qualified officers from board-approved promotion lists after service leaders refused his request to remove them. About half the officers were Black or women. And now, the share of high-ranking officer nominations going to women is at its lowest level in more than two decades, The New York Times reports.
Although women have served in combat roles for more than 30 years, including in ground combat for the past decade, Hegseth ordered a review of combat roles for women and disbanded the nonpartisan Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services.
All this matters for several reasons.
First, the U.S. military is an all-volunteer force, with women counting for about 10% of Marines and closer to 20% of the other services. Women serve on every type of warship, including submarines. They fly fighter jets, command bases and serve in elite units such as the Army Rangers. There are very few military specialties today that don’t include women.
Our military cannot afford to deprive itself of this talent. And there is value — despite Hegseth’s protestations — in fielding a force that looks like and represents the people it defends, especially when you ask those same people to join it. That’s a big part of what an “all” volunteer force means.
The Pentagon would counter that recruiting across the services is healthy. But that has more to do with programs the military put in place under the previous administration and the state of the economy than it does adherence to President Donald Trump’s leadership.
Recruiting numbers are also lagging indicators, often months behind popular sentiment and proclivities to serve. I don’t believe we have seen yet the negative effect of Hegseth’s fixation of stamping out all aspects of diversity, equity and inclusion.
Second, his rash of firings is depriving the ranks of exceptionally qualified leaders during a time of war.
Consider Lisa Franchetti, the four-star admiral Hegseth fired one month after he took office. Franchetti had commanded several warships and, in 2018, led Navy airstrikes on Syrian chemical weapons sites — strikes ordered by then-President Trump.
Or how about Air Force Lt. General Jennifer Short, who was senior military assistant to the secretary of defense when Hegseth fired her? Short had racked up more than 1,800 hours flying the A-10 Warthog; more than 400 of those hours were in combat missions over Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or Navy Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, who was canned shortly after taking up a leadership post at NATO headquarters. Chatfield flew three different types of helicopters in two different combat theaters. In 2008, she earned a Bronze Star for “extraordinary leadership in the face of persistent threat” while leading a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan.
Hegseth likes to talk about lethality. These women kicked lethality’s butt.
I knew and served alongside each of them. They were fine leaders and good people. And now, like the other women Hegseth has ousted, they and their expertise are gone from the services. Replacing their wisdom and experience will take at least a decade — if we’re lucky.
What message are the younger women still in uniform, those who aspire to be an admiral or a general, taking away from all this? If conversations I am having with former female colleagues and shipmates are any indication, it is this: Thank you for your service, ladies, but don’t get any uppity ideas.
In his 2024 book, “The War on Warriors,” Hegseth wrote: “Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially in combat units.”
He walked that back a bit when seeking confirmation as defense secretary, but for many women in uniform those words still sting.
What message are women in uniform taking away from all this? If conversations with former female colleagues and shipmates are any indication, it is this: Thank you for your service, ladies, but don’t get any uppity ideas.
Seeing statutory board results tossed aside also surely stings. U.S. military promotions are determined through a rigorous process, focused keenly on one’s past performance and potential to advance.
For decades the military has told young officers that if they work hard, take the tough assignments and meet the standards, they will get a fair shake at a chance to move up. Now it looks like the military is breaking that deal — not because those women failed to uphold their part but because they don’t fit the mold of a high-testosterone, MAGA military.
The Pentagon denies any bias, of course. But the numbers don’t bear that out for blocked senior promotions. The perception of bias alone could have consequences as women lose faith in the military and in a promotion process that for decades was diligently protected from politics.
And that’s the third reason Hegseth’s actions matter so much. As discouraged women leave the service, their exits threaten to reduce the ranks of mid-level officers today, which in turn would deny the military of their leadership tomorrow. In other words, retaining talent well below the rank of admiral or general could also become an issue.
The secretary has said his actions are all about merit and standards. But in February, enlisted leaders for each of the armed services testified to Congress that they had seen no evidence that standards had been lowered or that women degraded unit readiness.
And believing the argument that each of the blocked promotions was based purely on merit would require there to be adverse material in the records of each and every officer that promotion boards had overlooked.
It’s worth remembering that promotion board results were certified by the relevant service secretary before they reached Hegseth’s desk — and that Driscoll resigned as Army secretary partly because of Hegseth’s refusal to honor those certifications.
To be fair, Pete Hegseth is not the first secretary of defense to call for reviews of certain skill sets and communities within the armed forces, nor is he the first secretary to fire senior officers or block promotions. And not all the officers he has sidelined have been women.
He does not have to publicly justify each firing, though the unprecedented scale of officer firings and blocked promotions has led some members of Congress to demand explanation and Sen. Thom Tillis to call for Hegseth’s own firing.
But taken together and in light of his long-standing views about women in the military — reinforced by his recent reprehensible body-shaming of a female Canadian teenage cadet — it is clear that Hegseth is spearheading a concerted effort to diminish female leadership in the armed forces.
That risks making it more difficult to recruit and retain female talent, depriving our troops of some truly exceptional leaders and politicizing both the promotion process and the senior ranks.
Hegseth is not just campaigning against DEI; he’s campaigning against DNA. If you don’t have a Y chromosome, then you don’t have much of a shot at senior leadership. That’s a wholly new and different “war on warriors.” And nobody wins that one — not Hegseth, not the military and certainly not the American people.
The post How Pete Hegseth turned a war on military DEI into a war on DNA appeared first on MS NOW.
Author: Source Author
From MS Now.
Leave a Reply