By Maurizio Valsania
As he paced across a stage at a military base in Quantico, Virginia, on Sept. 30, 2025, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told the hundreds of U.S. generals and admirals he had summoned from around the world that he aimed to reshape the military’s culture.
Ten new directives, he said, would strip away what he called “woke garbage” and restore what he termed a “warrior ethos.”
The phrase “warrior ethos” – a mix of combativeness, toughness and dominance – has become central to Hegseth’s political identity. In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors,” he insisted that the inclusion of women in combat roles had drained that ethos, leaving the U.S. military less lethal.
In his address, Hegseth outlined what he sees as the qualities and virtues the American soldier – and especially senior officers – should embody.
On physical fitness and appearance, he was blunt: “It’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world.”
He then turned from body shape to grooming: “No more beardos,” Hegseth declared. “The era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done.”
As a historian of George Washington, I can say that the commander in chief of the Continental Army, the nation’s first military leader, would have agreed with some of Secretary Hegseth’s directives – but only some.
Washington’s overall vision of a military leader could not be further from Hegseth’s vision of the tough warrior.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
280 pounds – and trusted
For starters, Washington would have found the concern with “fat generals” irrelevant. Some of the most capable officers in the Continental Army were famously overweight.
His trusted chief of artillery, Gen. Henry Knox, weighed around 280 pounds. The French officer Marquis de Chastellux described Knox as “a man of thirty-five, very fat, but very active, and of a gay and amiable character.”
Others were not far behind. Chastellux also described Gen. William Heath as having “a noble and open countenance.” His bald head and “corpulence,” he added, gave him “a striking resemblance to Lord Granby,” the celebrated British hero of the Seven Years’ War. Granby was admired for his courage, generosity and devotion to his men.
Washington never saw girth as disqualifying. He repeatedly entrusted Knox with the most demanding assignments: designing fortifications, commanding artillery and orchestrating the legendary “noble train of artillery” that brought cannon from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston.
When he became president, after the Revolution, Washington appointed Knox the first secretary of war – a sign of enduring confidence in his judgment and integrity.
Beards: Outward appearance reflects inner discipline
As for beards, Washington would have shared Hegseth’s concern – though for very different reasons.
He disliked facial hair on himself and on others, including his soldiers. To Washington, a beard made a man look unkempt and slovenly, masking the higher emotions that civility required.
Beards were not signs of virility but of disorder. In his words, they made a man “unsoldierlike.” Every soldier, he insisted, must appear in public “as decent as his circumstances will permit.” Each was required to have “his beard shaved – hair combed – face washed – and cloaths put on in the best manner in his power.”
For Washington, this was no trivial matter. Outward appearance reflected inner discipline. He believed that a well-ordered body produced a well-ordered mind.
To him, neatness was the visible expression of self-command, the foundation of every other virtue a soldier and leader should possess.
That is why he equated beards and other forms of unkemptness with “indecency.” His lifelong battle was against indecency in all its forms. “Indecency,” he once wrote, was “utterly inconsistent with that delicacy of character, which an officer ought under every circumstance to preserve.”
More statesman than warrior
By “delicacy,” Washington meant modesty, tact and self-awareness – the poise that set genuine leaders apart from individuals governed by passions.
For him, a soldier’s first victory was always over himself.
“A man attentive to his duty,” he wrote, “feels something within him that tells him the first measure is dictated by that prudence which ought to govern all men who commits a trust to another.”
In other words, Washington became a soldier not because he was hotheaded or drawn to the thrill of combat, but because he saw soldiering as the highest exercise of discipline, patience and composure. His “warrior ethos” was moral before it was martial.
Washington’s ideal military leader was more statesman than warrior. He believed that military power must be exercised under moral constraint, within the bounds of public accountability, and always with an eye to preserving liberty rather than winning personal glory.
In his mind, the army was not a caste apart but an instrument of the republic – an arena in which self-command and civic virtue were tested. Later generations would call him the model of the “republican general”: a commander whose authority rested not on bluster or bravado but on composure, prudence and restraint.
That vision was the opposite of the one Pete Hegseth performed at Quantico.
Currier and Ives image, photo by Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images
Discipline and steadiness, not fury and bravado
The “warrior ethos” Hegseth celebrates – loud, performative – was precisely what Washington believed a soldier must overcome.
In March 1778, after Marquis de Lafayette abandoned an impossible winter expedition to Canada, Washington praised caution over juvenile bravado.
“Every one will applaud your prudence in renouncing a project in which you would vainly have attempted physical impossibilities,” he wrote from the snows of Valley Forge.
For Washington, valor was never the same as recklessness. Success, he believed, depended on foresight, not fury, and certainly not bravado.
The first commander in chief cared little for waistlines or whiskers, in the end; what concerned him was discipline of the mind. What counted was not the cut of a man’s figure but the steadiness of his judgment.
Washington’s own “warrior ethos” was grounded in decency, temperance and the capacity to act with courage without surrendering to rage. That ideal built an army – and in time, a republic.
Maurizio Valsania is Professor of American History at the University of Turin and a frequent contributor to the Conversation at FlaglerLive. See his previous pieces here, here, here and here.
Thomas Hutson says
Please DO NOT even try to equate this KNUCKLE DRAGGING PUNK ex-tv host to a MILITARY LEADER like GENERAL WASHINGTON OR ANY OF THE GENERALS that were EMBARRASSED BY THIS PUNK and his boss ! They both (a draft dodger who called our military heroes suckers and losers and what was in it for them and a Drunk punk trying to be tough) belittle and shame our most Decorated Military Officers!! Our military deserves an apology from both these jerks!
Deirdre says
Hegseth didn’t even mention the importance of precious bodily fluids, but maybe next time. The generals must have great respect for him, he’s such a commanding manly leader and warrior himself. The important thing is he’s not overweight like Trump, plus no beard. I’m so proud to have the two of them with their hands on the button.
I wonder who they’ll consider loyal, maybe after the city training they’ll know how to eliminate the commies from our nation and then the world. Practice makes perfect!
Ed P says
Knuckle dragging
Ex-tv host
Punk
Drunk punk
Did you forget , “hey laser lips, your mother was a snow blower”
The delivery was not over the top given the level of testosterone in the room.
You obviously have no idea.
Pogo says
@Bill Maher
…recently, quipped that Trump will likely start wearing a military uniform by Christmas. Bill, I’ll see your dress blues — and raise you a cape, speedo, and tights. Sweat shops are probably grinding out the merch as I speak.
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+in+cape+tights
Trump, only, knows when the ceremony deifying him in a toga will stream from his pet organ grinders of fascism like Pox, et cetera.
In all of human history, there have never been more manifestly unfit and unworthy persons as Trump, and its administration.
Jason says
Sorry, but if you haven’t served in the Armed Forces and also been deployed to a combat zone then you might not be qualified to speak on what physical characteristics are important to being a strong and effective leader in the modern era we live in today. Washington fought wars at a time when it was considered honorable to stand in line and trade shots against the enemy line and considered unthinkable to attack a General. We haven’t been involved with a war like that since the Civil War.
I can tell you from personal experience that when my superiors looked obese in uniform and didn’t participate in PT with their subordinates that it drove a wedge between us and created an two tiered environment. The military that your average enlisted person experiences is entirely different than the military that an officer experiences. Enlisted are treated more property and officers are the property owners.
If you don’t understand why military standards are important in relation to grooming, fitness, and readiness then you aren’t qualified to speak on them. As an example, the “beardos” is speaking on the rampant misuse of shaving profiles that Soldiers receive because they get shaving bumps. But the reason you shave every morning is so your gas mask can make a proper seal against your skin so you don’t become a causality in a CBRN attack.
As Americans you have the right to speak your opinion on anything, but it carries a significantly higher weight when you actually know what you are talking about…
Laurel says
Jason: Let me tell you what I’m talking about!
A Captain in the Reserves, and a draft dodger, stood in front of a large attendance of the world’s best, career Generals and Admirals, with decades of experience and knowledge, and made fools of themselves, and us as a country. What do you figure went through these experienced military minds, Weight Watchers? They were pulled away, from different parts of the world, by two pickle heads who have no idea what these Generals and Admirals were doing, just to play theater.
Trump and Hegseth did not pull these “ethos” ideas out of their asses. Geez, what would we do without them?
By the way, whatever happened to “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”? So, what time is it?
Jason says
@Laurel
Tell me more that you haven’t served with actual telling me you haven’t served.
A fundamental concept in the US military is the idea that you train for the position one to two levels above you and ensure that your subordinates can take over for you in any circumstance. That is a distinct difference in our military and the military’s of other nations.
So knowing that, you wouldn’t be making silly hyperbolic comments about the harms of generals being called back for a conference. You’d rightfully understand that there is a chain of command and business will be as usual in their absence.
Your comments have significantly more value when you speak from a position of experience and knowledge rather than emotion and hate.
Skibum says
Let me tell YOU something, Jason! You think the only reason all of those soldiers and marines in the military shave every morning is so their gas masks will get a good seal on their faces? If you do, you are so full of shit that your pants are around your cankles, dude!
The military men and women service members do what their more senior, experienced leaders tell them to do because the many lower ranking service members are INEXPERIENCED, many times IMMATURE, barely trained, in need of ongoing further training and most of all MENTORING by older, more mature, seasoned, knowledgeable, proven leaders. The experienced leaders who have stood the test of time in our nation’s military know how to bring the younger members of the military along gradually, in order to improve their skill set, yes, but equally as important are the life lessons, the constant mentoring and passing along the traits that enabled our military leaders to advance in rank. I’m talking about ETHICS, PEOPLE SKILLS, JUDGEMENT, MORAL RESPONSIBILITY.
How about the critical ability of real leaders to earn the respect that leaders need in order to get others to follow orders. It is because of the type of person they are inside, how they treat those subordinates, how they inspire them to be the best soldiers and marines they are capable of being. Everyone ages, and our physical bodies have a nasty habit of changing in ways we don’t always like as the aging process takes it’s course. But we don’t throw out great leaders simply because of the perception that a great leader has gained weight through the aging process. There are obvious signs of leadership qualities in individuals, but “beardos” and “fatties” as described by the idiot former TV host who calls himself secretary of “war” shows himself to be no leader of anyone! He is a caricature of incompetence, a drunkard who thinks leadership is standing on a stage and lecturing REAL leaders simply because of an unearned title given to him by someone who is a convicted felon, a draft dodger who cried that he could not serve in the military because of supposed bone spurs!
Neither of those horrible examples deserve to standing before military generals and admirals with many thousands of years of military service and leadership, lecturing them about military leadership, or having the audacity to tell them what their duties should be or to whom their loyalties should be toward. Those generals and admirals already know much more than the two idiots who stood before them.
They also know, for damn sure, that our military is NEVER, EVER supposed to be turned loose in American cities and set upon American citizens at the order of a sitting president who believes American citizens are “the enemy within” because they didn’t vote for him and surely do not support the unconstitutional and illegal things he is doing to control all aspects of our federal government as well as private institutions.
Jason, there is a very good reason why we don’t ever leave the important military decisions up to the baby faced, wet behind the ears members of our military who think they are John Wayne reincarnated, carrying an automatic rifle around. Leadership is about responsibilities and accountability as much as anything else, and those hundreds of generals and admirals who had to sit there in that auditorium and listen to all of the garbage that was coming from the pie holes of the two imbiciles was probably much more difficult to endure than many of us can imagine. But they sat there quietly and did it anyway precisely because of their training and experience told them when they left that ridiculous meeting they could get together in their normal groups, have a stiff drink and talk openly among themselves.
I imagine many of the conversations afterward were about what a complete shit show that was, and the total BS that they can forget about and go back to their assigned posts and get back to the REAL work of continuing to lead, to train, to mentor without another thought about the un-American performative nonsense they just experienced from idiots in office who don’t have a clue what they are talking about or trying to force our nation’s military to do against our own citizens.
If YOU don’t know that our nation’s military has a moral obligation to refuse to follow illegal or unconstitutional orders given to them, I’m quite sure most, if not all of those military leaders in that room do in fact know that, and were probably thinking exactly that while the idiots were rambling on like the stooges they were, and belittling themselves in front of dedicated men and women who have so much more integrity and dedication to lawful conduct than this corrupt administration gives them credit for.
Sherry says
This from Defensescoop. . . a highly respected source for military news. Tke just a couple of minutes to get educated:
Experts react to Hegseth’s Quantico summit: ‘Wrong message, wrong time, wrong audience’
President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made controversial speeches at a rare summit of military leaders in Quantico this week.
By
Brandi Vincent
October 3, 2025
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks to senior military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico on September 30, 2025 in Quantico, Virginia. In an unprecedented gathering, almost 800 generals, admirals and their senior enlisted leaders have been ordered into one location from around the world on short notice.
Lawmakers and former service members warned that the Trump administration’s near-term vision for the Pentagon — including plans to gut long-standing oversight functions — could make America’s armed forces weaker and less safe in the wake of the unusual summit in Quantico this week, where the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed an auditorium filled with the nation’s most seasoned military officers.
“This event was a performance, from start to finish, meant to communicate to the military’s senior uniformed leaders that their dissent is unwelcome. And it came at a risk to national security and a cost to the American taxpayer,” said Virginia Burger, who served for nine years as an active-duty U.S. Marine Corps officer.
In separate interviews with DefenseScoop, Burger — who is now a Senior Defense Policy Analyst at the Project on Government Oversight — and current and former defense officials who requested anonymity to speak freely, shared their initial reactions to the 90-minute live-streamed event.
“It was abhorrent. It was an abomination,” one former senior defense official said.
A ‘macho’ stance
“I cannot believe 800 generals and flag officers were brought into that building to hear a pep-speech that would be better delivered by a captain to a bunch of enlisted and lieutenants out in the field somewhere. It had not anything related to the issues I would have expected the secretary of defense to be focusing on,” the former senior defense official noted.
In their view, Hegseth was trying to deliver a speech akin to one that Gen. George Patton, the celebrated American Army commander in World War II who was known for his hard-driving personality, would deliver.
“But Patton had a lot more in his background that allowed him to give speeches the way he did. He was a formidable intellect in his own right, and I would not use that term referring to the current leadership in the building. It’s a lack of intellect and just very poor leadership qualities,” the former senior defense official said.
They gave “a lot of credit” to the audience of top military brass for remaining stoic and quiet as they listened to the two speeches.
The former senior official said they “half-jokingly” wondered if the defense leaders might have “facial recognition doing sentiment analysis of the audience, and anybody who wasn’t cheering the secretary on would be immediately called into his office and read the Riot Act. That’s how dystopian of a world that we’re in right now — that that thing just is not fanciful, it’s actually possible.”
They continued: “But the fact that this was being filmed tells me everything I need to know. It was for their internal purposes, and then it was to focus on this being their military, as opposed to America’s military. The oath of office is never to a person, but to the idea of the Constitution. So, I was appalled.”
In their publicly live-streamed remarks, Hegseth and Trump ran through plans for disruptive policy shifts around mandatory training, oversight processes, records retention rules, physical fitness and grooming standards and more.
“I commanded at every possible level. We were a stronger military because of our diverse backgrounds and views. And that’s all you need to say,” the former senior defense official said. “To actually come out and say ‘that’s not what we want’ is antithetical to the world that I want to be in. It’s a confusion of a macho stance as opposed to a tough stance. And those are two different things. There have been lots of tough leaders in that building, I’ve been in front of many of them, and they can chew your ass out without blinking an eye. But this is different.”
“This is just ‘I am strong, you work for me, and by God, anything you do that I don’t like I’m going to fire you on the spot.’ That’s not the best thing we want to send to the senior most leaders who could be facing a crisis, or in a conflict in the blink of an eye. Within the next five years, we’ll be somewhere in conflict, and we have to be better prepared. So, no — it’s not making us stronger, it’s making us weaker,” they said.
At the Quantico summit on Tuesday, Trump and Hegseth announced a number of moves, including requiring all combat arms positions to use the “highest male standard” in their physical fitness requirements; banning beards except for people with temporary waivers, and reworking the inspector general process, among others.
Hegseth, who is currently under investigation by the Defense Department Office of Inspector General after sharing sensitive operational war plans via the Signal app, told the military commanders: “Today, at my direction, I’m issuing new policies that will overhaul the IG, [Equal Employment Opportunity, and Military Equal Opportunity] processes. I call it the ‘no more walking on eggshells’ policy.”
The Pentagon chief signed a slew of associated memorandums that outline the administration’s new proposals after the speech, but many questions remain.
“The DOD OIG is aware of what Secretary Hegseth said during his address to military leadership. We are reviewing related department guidance that was circulated today,” an official from that office told DefenseScoop in an email before the government shutdown on Wednesday.
The former senior defense official, who served in high-ranking positions under previous Republican and Democratic administrations, told DefenseScoop that they “had all sorts of issues” with the IG and Government Accountability Office during their tenure.
“I think they’re a pain in the ass, I think they did some things they shouldn’t have done. But it is the checks and balance that matters — because without those, we go hog wild and we end up with a military that nobody wants, just a rogue military,” the former official said.
Trump echoed Hegseth’s aggressive tone and also made a series of sensational claims during his more-than-70-minute speech. At one point, the president referenced the ongoing domestic deployments of the National Guard to American cities, suggesting Democrat-run cities could be used as “training grounds” for the military.
“This, combined with the secretary’s rhetoric on increasing military lethality, is a concerning combination. Highly lethal troops patrolling American cities begs the question — who are the adversaries those soldiers are meant to be fighting? What are the risks to Americans’ civil liberties and public safety if the military — the force purpose built to kill and wage war — is now in their streets? These are indications and warnings of creeping authoritarianism that needs to be flagged and addressed by Congress,” Burger said.
‘We don’t want that at all’
The officials who DefenseScoop interviewed broadly agreed that the leaders’ remarks at Quantico seemed designed to essentially make the military’s senior officials feel that they must conform to the new status quo, or risk their careers and livelihood.
“This exercise cost the American taxpayers millions of dollars to fly in every Admiral, General, and their entourages,” Burger noted. “At the end of the day, this event was meant to communicate to these senior leaders that they are at the beck and call of the president and Secretary Hegseth, regardless of national security, tactical requirements, or unnecessary costs to taxpayers — and to kiss the ring when summoned.”
Multiple times during his remarks, Hegseth reminded the audience about the recent personnel cuts and multiple senior military leaders he’s fired so far — and that more workforce changes are coming.
Hegseth has faced questions from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress regarding the seemingly unjustified firings.
However, Burger told DefenseScoop, Congress does not have any statutory role in the relief and firing of general officers and flag officers. The Senate confirms the promotions of military officers and conducts hearings for the nominees to specific key leadership positions within the military, but there is no formal role for them in the relief process.
“That being said, they could increase their oversight of these firings by demanding further information on the justification for each one. That, however, would simply be a fact-finding campaign, as they have no power to change the decisions. In my opinion, Congress should consider drafting legislation that gives them some power in this process,” Burger said. “There are multiple avenues they could take to achieve this while still balancing the need for the commander-in-chief to retain strategic control over the military, and they should be considered given how frequently the current administration is using the firing of general officers to increasingly politicize the force.”
Several Democratic lawmakers issued statements criticizing the contents of the engagement.
“At a time when global security demands focus, this gathering distracted from our troops’ missions and wasted their time. Leadership requires seriousness and respect for those who serve. What happened at Quantico was the opposite,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said.
Spokespersons for three senior Republican congressional leaders did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday. But multiple GOP lawmakers expressed support for the remarks on social media.
In a post on X, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) wrote that the speeches “outlined a bright future for our armed forces,” and that “by removing politics, emphasizing fitness standards and combat readiness, our military is refocused on deterring wars and winning them if necessary.”
In the aftermath of the summit, experts raised additional flags about Hegseth’s call for troops to ignore “stupid rules of engagement.” Such mechanisms govern when and how the U.S. military is permitted to use force.
“I mean, the idea of completely disregarding rules of engagement is so far beneath what we should be talking about. We stand for rules of engagement. We hold people accountable for violating international humanitarian law. So, the idea of standing up there is basically giving some people a green light to go do bad things on a battlefield — that’s horrendous. We don’t want that at all,” the former senior defense official told DefenseScoop. “So, wrong message, wrong time, wrong audience.”
The experts who were interviewed also broadly expressed concerns that the summit at Quantico would likely leave many top service members feeling uncertain about their futures — and isolated. They said it’s important to signal to people who are still on active duty that those who used to be in uniform, the media, and others still in office “have their backs” at this time.
“The message should be to stand up for your integrity, your morals and your values that got you there in the first place,” the former senior defense official said.
Me says
Skibum says. Thank you for you well written comment.
Jason says
@skibum
One of the hallmarks of the US military is that it is commanded by a CIVILIAN and not the military itself. Whether you like the civilian that is ultimately in charge (POTUS) or the civilian SECDEF or the civilian branch secretaries is immaterial.
Another hallmark of our military is that you “respect the rank not necessarily the man/woman wearing it”. What that means is you treat the person wearing the rank with the proper respect for the position they hold even if you hate the person wearing it. You can certainly earn the respect of your subordinates and peers on an individual level, but it is NOT required. In fact, our military explicitly ensures that leaders are constantly rotating to explicitly avoid a situation where loyalties would be given to a commander and not the constitution.
All military members have a constitutional obligation to disobey unlawful orders. But there is a process for that you seem to be uneducated on. I can ensure you that telling Generals that they have to meet the exact same height, weight, and physical fitness standards as their subordinates is NOT unconstitutional. If you believe that it should be then I encourage you to campaign for that change and be a zealous advocate for your convictions.
Jason says
@pogo
“In all of human history, there have never been more manifestly unfit and unworthy persons as Trump, and its administration”
That is a pretty bold statement to make, especially when most middle school students know of the millions killed by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Chavez, Hussein, Gaddafi, Putin…
To my knowledge, Trump has not even risen to the likes of our former president Roosevelt when he put Japanese Americans in internment camps during WW2 and caused the death of a thousand as a direct result.
The hyperbole has gotten so extreme that some of us need to be reminded of the childhood lesson we were taught about the boy who cried wolf…
Mothersworry says
Jason, I guess according to you I am entitled to speak to this issue as I am a CV. Of course my time in a combat zone was a long time ago, in Viet Nam. Frankly myself and the rest of us didn’t give a damn if the guy next to you at 3AM with incoming was shaved or overweight. All we cared about was if they could shoot and move real quietly. Gas Masks were never used or carried. The pouch that the mask came in was used for more ammo. Woman in combat or in a combat zone, bring them. I’ve seen them in action. When a hospital and other facilities was hit by sappers outside of Saigon. They didn’t run and hide they stood hard and cared for their patients using a flashlight, we explained that they were making a target of themselves. They didn’t care, they kept on changing bandages and moving wounded out of bed and onto the floor. That is why there is a statue for them next to The Wall in DC, to honor their courage.
Regarding Hegseth and Trump, they were an embarrassment. Did folks not look at the awards and ribbons on those folks who were being lectured by the two buffoons? A draft dodger and a “garret trooper” It was disgusting. I feel the same every time that pos salutes, I could puke.
One last thing Jason, you don’t get to set criteria for who can voice an opinion.
Jason says
@Moethersworry
“Frankly myself and the rest of us didn’t give a damn if the guy next to you at 3AM with incoming was shaved or overweight. All we cared about was if they could shoot and move real quietly”
No disagreement with you. But I think it is fair to point out that the military and service members during the Vietnam era are not the same as today. We are currently a military entirely made up of volunteers. Those volunteers raised their hand and took an oath to the constitution and also agreed to uphold the values of the branch they joined–which includes maintaining a professional appearance, being physically and mentally fit, amongst a swath of others. I strongly support the SECDEF/SECWAR in his desire to purge the military of those than no longer desire to uphold the oath and values they originally did.
Pogo says
@To Whom It May Concern
Jerking off Jason is your choice.
Almost all of what you said is valid and well stated — and fuels his gaslight.
My solution is mine alone: change the channel, take a break, and have a genuinely meaningful encounter with a special edition Oreo cookie and a cup of tea. Still better than maga trolls: watching grass grow, paint dry — fill-in-the-blank.
Back on topic:
Pete in your pocket
https://www.google.com/search?q=estimate+per+diem+temporary+assigned+duty+adminisrative+costs+hegseth+quantico+speech
Pete on the wall of our war fighter’s latrines
https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/future-of-military-standards-secretary-hegseths-quantico-speech.html
At ease, the smoking lamp is lit.
Ray W. says
Hello Mothersworry.
Curious to understand the meaning of a “garret trooper”, I found in one source the phrase “parade field trooper. Who never leaves that nice soft garrison. And always looks real pretty.”
Another source described such a person as “one who never visits the line. He never sees action. He polishes his boots and starches his uniform at base.”
Another source claims the term “Garet Trooper” comes from an English song from the album Ballads of The Green Berets.”
Do any or all of these fit your meaning?
Skibum says
Thank you, Mothersworry, for you voice, your common sense, and not least of all, your dedicated and patriotic service to our nation!
Laurel says
Sherry, Skibum and Motherworry, thank you for your input! Motherworry, thank you for your service, and the valuable information you provided about the brave women and men you served alongside. The three of you provided facts and insight.
Jason, thank you for your service as well.
During World War I they used gas masks; today they use drones. War has changed, and we need to adapt to it. A macho speech from a TV commenter, and a draft dodger hardly fits the bill. It was theater for personal gain. Trump told the audience “You can applause if you want to.” They did not. The difference is the level of sophistication was dramatic.
Jason says
@Laurel
I deployed to Iraq and I had a gas mask but thankfully never had to use it. I also still had to maintain a professional appearance while in a combat zone. I’ll admit I didn’t always understand why.
I couldn’t help but chuckle at your comment on macho speeches when that is literally the exact type of speeches I received almost daily while in the Army. I’m always intrigued by the perceptions that others have of the life military members live and most seem to have no idea of what we actually go through mentally and physically. You see the wounded warriors and politicians using us for votes but you don’t ever see the full picture.
In my basic training alone I had to memorize and chant the steps on how to kill my enemy by inserting a blade in their rib cage, twisting, and covering my hands in their blood while watching the life leave their eyes. I sang cadences about making the green grass grow with the blood of my enemies. And now I read about how civilians ,that never served, are reacting to a speech given to military members about upholding standards already on the books. I can assure you that this speech was rated G in comparison to speeches the public never hears. It’s safe to unclutch those pearls…
Sherry says
Meanwhile, the trump administration is taking a wrecking ball to “Cyber Security” services!
Sherry says
@Pogo. . . Loved your last comment regarding what TO DO or NOT TO DO with/for Maga Trolls. Sage advice indeed!
Sherry says
@Mothersworry, Thank you for your service and for “telling it like it is”!
The FUTURE of military readiness will certainly depend more and more on the “brains” needed to program and control the Cyber/AI/Automated/Robotics of war machines. The macho BS spouted by trump and hegseth would be completely laughable if they didn’t have so many Maga cult brainwashed followers.