Bulwark Takes: "Is Adm. Bradley Getting Blamed for Hegseth’s Mess?"

Podcast Date: December 2, 2025
Hosted by Ben Parker, with guest General Mark Hertling

Episode Overview

This episode of Bulwark Takes tackles the escalating scandal in the U.S. military’s Caribbean operations—specifically, who is being blamed for the alleged illegal orders to kill defenseless survivors after a boat attack. Ben Parker and retired General Mark Hertling explore the moral, legal, and constitutional issues raised by these actions, how the chain of command is reacting, and the administration’s shifting attempts to distance high-level leaders, particularly Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The conversation also covers the broader consequences for American military ethics and civilian-military relations.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Scandal and the Pentagon’s Shifting Story (03:00–04:06)

• Initial Allegations: Washington Post reports Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth allegedly ordered the killing of boat attack survivors.
• Official Denials and Deflection:
  • Pentagon: Denied the narrative, labeling it as “fake news.”
  • Trump: Provided ambiguous comments, simultaneously distancing the administration from the orders while not clearly denying them.
  • White House: Newly alleged it was Admiral Frank Bradley, Special Operations Command, who was responsible, claiming his actions were “within his authority and the law.”

"The Pentagon said, no, actually it was this other admiral who was responsible, not the Secretary of Defense and certainly not the President." — Ben Parker (03:00)

2. The Laws of War and Moral Failures (04:06–06:15)

• Illegality of Orders:
  • General Hertling confirms such orders explicitly violate the law of armed conflict, referencing Pentagon manuals.
  • Example provided: It is a war crime to shoot survivors floating in water after an attack (see also: international humanitarian law).

"No, it is not only against the law, Ben, but it also is used as an example in a manual within the Pentagon that shows exactly what not to do." — Gen. Mark Hertling (04:06)

• Questionable Justification:
  • No declared war with Venezuela; unclear if U.S. actions constitute war or criminal policing.
  • Lack of proof that the targets were terrorists, raising concerns the incident could constitute “straight up murder.”

3. The Chain of Command and Legal Responsibility (07:40–13:16)

• Who Gave the Order?

  • Confusion over whether it was SOCOM, JSOC, or SOUTHCOM that had operational authority at the time.
  • Pentagon deflects blame onto Adm. Bradley, possibly making him a scapegoat.

• Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders:

  • All soldiers have the obligation to refuse unlawful orders, a foundational aspect of U.S. military ethics.
  • Procedures include reporting to Judge Advocate General or Inspector General.

"If I'm Private Smith and you're Sergeant Parker and you tell me, hey, go shoot those prisoners immediately, my morals say this isn't the right thing to do. ... It's my duty to disobey that order." — Gen. Mark Hertling (10:50)

4. Timeline and Changing Leadership (17:44–21:09)

• Timing of Strikes and Retirements:
  • Strike in question occurred on September 2.
  • Leadership changes and retirements in top commands immediately followed—suggestive of internal turmoil or anticipation of fallout.
  • Admiral Halsey (SOUTHCOM) abruptly retires; Admiral Bradley promoted to SOCOM after incident.

"Something must have pushed him [Halsey] to do that. ... It seems pretty interesting to me that all of this centered around the change of command between JSOC, SOCOM and a retirement announcement of SOUTHCOM." — Gen. Mark Hertling (17:07, 20:44)

5. Political Fallout and Congressional Oversight (22:43–26:45)

• White House Strategy:

  • White House’s term “authorized” (not “legal”) in reference to the order raises eyebrows—suggests possible liability and attempts at plausible deniability.
  • Bipartisan agreement in Congress formulating to investigate.

• Will Admiral Bradley Testify?

  • Hertling: High-level officers are obligated to give candid advice to Congress, even against superiors' interests.
  • As a likely “last assignment” officer, Bradley may have little to lose and incentives to be forthright.

"When you're brought before the Congress for some kind of committee... you're subjected to telling what your advice is." — Gen. Mark Hertling (25:39)

6. Moral Leadership at the Top (26:45–31:09)

• Pete Hegseth’s History and Attitude:
  • Hertling draws parallels to previous scandals (Abu Ghraib, Black Hearts, Tartar Island) where ambiguous or immoral commands led to atrocity and breakdown of discipline.
  • Hegseth’s public attitude on social media—immature, boastful, flippant—contrasts with seriousness of the alleged war crimes.
  • The moral leadership vacuum at the highest civilian level potentially poisons the entire command culture.

"He wasn't taking any of this very seriously, which tells me he knew exactly what happened and was proud of it, by the way." — Military Analyst/Commentator (22:35)

• Broader Institutional Consequences:
  • Such incidents risk degrading military discipline, civil-military trust, and American society’s perception of its armed forces, regardless of one’s politics.

"It affects not only the discipline of the force and the moral implications... but it also starts affecting and degrading the institution and causing additional divisiveness within the American society." — Gen. Mark Hertling (30:46–31:09)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "It specifically would be a war crime if you shot them [survivors in water]." — Gen. Mark Hertling (04:15)
• "We don't even know if we're legally in a war... are we in a criminal action or counter criminal action against drug smugglers, which is a crime?" — Gen. Mark Hertling (04:38)
• "The formal term is hors de combat, which means they are outside the realm of combat... It's considered both an illegal and an immoral act." — Military Analyst/Commentator (06:15)
• "Congress never said we're at war with the Venezuelan drug traffickers, if that's even who this was." — Ben Parker (09:49)
• "You don't retire as a brand new four star general. He had only been in the job for nine months... something else was going on." — Gen. Mark Hertling (16:39)
• "Now you've made Admiral Bradley... your scapegoat. If you were Admiral Bradley and you got a letter saying the Senate Armed Services Committee would like you to come testify, would you not tell them everything that happened?" — Ben Parker (23:08)
• "We obey legal orders, we obey rules of engagement, we obey the laws of international law and the laws of land warfare and the Geneva Convention. But that's not quite where he [Hegseth] sees it." — Military Analyst/Commentator (29:40)

Important Segment Timestamps

• Allegations and Pentagon Response – 03:00–04:06
• Illegality of the Alleged Orders – 04:06–06:15
• Chain of Command, Legal Duty, and Training – 10:24–13:16
• Timeline of Command Changes and Suspicious Retirements – 17:44–21:09
• Congressional Oversight and the Stakes for Whistleblowers – 22:43–26:45
• Moral Leadership & Historical Context – 26:45–31:09

Conclusion

The episode provides a deep, unvarnished look at a rapidly developing military scandal—one that raises critical questions for Congress, the armed forces, and the American public. Are top officials using the chain of command as a shield for potentially criminal orders? Will career officers break their code of silence under congressional scrutiny? And at what cost does declining moral leadership at the highest levels spill down through American institutions?
The hosts and guests make it clear: this is not merely about one strike or one official, but about the very integrity of American military and democratic governance in the face of crisis.