← Bulwark Takes
Bulwark Takes
Retired General Breaks Down Everything Wrong with Hegseth's West Point Speech | Command Post
00:55:06
Loading summary
Transcript99 lines
- [00:02]
A
Apro vecha los ahoros de Memorial Day in los y compra los vasicos parelo gar pormenos ahoro centadolares en la parria gas de cuatro que madores Charbroil Performance Series Ademasa Horrantai cinco porciento en electro domestico selectos nuestra mejor Selection Sta qui and Lowe's. Lowe's nosotros ayudamos 2 ahoras. Foreign hi, I'm Ben Parker from the Bulwark.
- [00:33]
B
And hi, I'm Mark Hertling from the Bulwark.
- [00:35]
A
Welcome back to another episode of Command Post. Thank you so much for joining us. We have to start we're going to we're going to talk about Pete Hegseth, we promised. It's in the title, it's in the thumbnail of the video. We're going to go through a whole bunch of Pete Hex stuff. But we have to start with an Iran update because and not too much, maybe before even we're done with this live stream, the president is going to be having a cabinet meeting to talk about the Iran negotiations. It is not at all clear to me what's happening. There are lots of reports about what may or may not be in this memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran. General, can you give us an update on Iran, please, because I can't follow it.
- [01:12]
B
Yeah, let's, let's try and summarize as best we can. BEN okay, so it's the 27th of May, and the United States and Iran are in what many might describe as an unstable arm. Pause. Now, you got to remember, epic Fury started on the 27th of February. So we're three months into this as an anniversary, and what we've seen over the last few days have been confusing. There's been continued combat actions over both sides in this so called memorandum of understanding phase. But the combat phase that began in February has diminished, certainly. But the issues that caused the conflict remain unresolved. And in some ways I'd suggest they've actually worsened. And that's probably what the president's going to talk about tonight. There are still major disconnects between tactical developments, what's going on with boats and ships in the straits, political messaging. Both sides are claiming with their own unique kind of spin the strategic outcomes they've achieved. But the members of the Trump administration continue to describe this, the current situation, as evidence of peace through strength. In other words, the military is what has caused all these things and that it has Worked. Iran, on the other hand, is portraying the pause as proof that they have survived the regime change effort and they forced Washington to negotiate. So both sides are claiming victory. And in this kind of situation, that usually means neither side has truly resolved anything. So these are the big things I'd like to point out, Ben. The current talks reportedly involved from the US Side reopening the Straits of Hormuz to commercial traffic phase, sanctions relief, potentially release of frozen Iranian assets, reduction or withdrawal of some US Naval forces, and discussion of Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Now, I didn't list those in order of importance because what's. What I think is interesting is the Washington wants, you know, Trump wants de escalation the nuclear breakout of Iran prevented and to restore shipping activities. Iran appears to want regime survival, sanctions relief, restoration of oil exports and preservation of at least some nuclear capability, whether it be for weapons or commercial use. So you can see it's, it's interesting that neither side has a clear picture during this Memorandum of Understanding what they want to achieve.
- [03:54]
A
Yeah, I want to focus in on what I think are the two main sticking points here. One of them is the Strait of Hormuz, which it sounds like the Iranians want to say, okay, we'll resume shipping. Unclear if that means shipping with their toll booth system, where if they have to charge, you know, they get to charge whatever want to different ships from different countries, which would effectively leave them in control of the Strait or. And so they want a resumption of shipping and the United States Navy to withdraw. So that effectively leaves Iran in control of the Strait. I don't think we're going to agree to that. I certainly don't think we should agree to that. But I don't. The other, the other moving piece is the, the nuclear program, which, and I wrote about this right when the, right when the Operation Epic Fury started is sort of people have trouble thinking and people in the administration seem to have trouble thinking about in connection with the rest of what Iran is doing. And we've heard about this from the administration. They wanted regime change. That was clear. Right. Help us on the way to the Iranian protesters. We're going to, you know, have our own. Trump was even saying, there's new leadership in Iran, there's new leadership. I'm going to choose the next ayatollah.
- [05:05]
B
He didn't.
- [05:08]
A
And then, so sorry, there was regime. Regime change. And then they said, oh, no, actually we just want to destroy the Iranian navy. That was the point, just to destroy the Iranian navy. And then Trump decided No, actually, they must. They must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, which doesn't explain why we didn't just do a repeat of Midnight Hammer from last summer, almost a year ago, where we just bombed the nuclear facilities. So it seems like Iran has sort of two trump cards, if you will. One is the Strait of Hormuz, which they are basically negotiating to get control of, and we apparently cannot reopen, otherwise we would have done so, or at least we think the cost is too high. And the other is some element of their nuclear weapons program, which my understanding is was almost entirely destroyed a year ago or a little less than a year ago.
- [06:03]
B
It was obliterated.
- [06:04]
A
Yeah.
- [06:05]
B
Right. Obliterated. Yeah.
- [06:07]
A
So it seems like they're saying, okay, well, like, you know, it seems like their negotiating position is regardless of what they're actually saying, which is we want all of this. Right. It seems like maybe the negotiating position is, which poison pill do you want to take? Trump administration, do you want the nuclear poison pill or the Strait of Hormuz poison pill? And it's not clear to me that the Trump administration has a plan for any of this, a plan for negotiating, a plan for achieving any kind of result. And my worry is that Iran is going to end up with both.
- [06:35]
B
Well, the shift has been, even though the, the dialogue seems to focus on the nuclear program, the real shift has been reopening the straits for the world's economy, global supply chains. It's been fascinating. You, you outlined all the shifts and pauses and redirections that we've seen over the last three months. And it has been interesting that the operational, the campaign, the military approach has shifted several times during this operation. The end state was never quite clear. And I think, again, I'm going to go back to the point that there are indicators and reports, valid reports from good agencies saying that Mr. Trump was pushed into this by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Netanyahu saw an opportunity. Iran had been damaged over the last year, plus, so let's finish them off by decapitating their leadership, which is what was attempted on the first night and achieved on the first night. But again, it doesn't show an understanding of how hardy the institutions are in Iraq, that they don't depend on one individual. They depend on the institutions of the ayatollah, the religious institutions, and the military institutions of the irgc. So that's why we're seeing continued shifts. Will the straits open, as you pointed out? Will Iran attempt a toll booth? I'm not sure they would be able to get away with that, because that's interfering with rights of navigation. But they could certainly charge more for port fees or loading fees or the kinds of things that commercial ships would, would have to pay to use their facilities to transport the goods. But it wouldn't necessarily be payment just to traverse the Strait of Hormuz. But it could certainly increase the economic situation here. That's what I think President Trump is primarily interested in. But as he stands outside his helicopters every day burning holes in the grass and the need for a helipad at the White House, it seems to be the primary focus is on the nuclear capability, which, as you so rightly said, was announced, had it having been obliterated a couple of months ago. So I just don't get that disconnect. And it just, it just really, I think, affects the ability to trust whatever we're hearing from the government or from Mr. Trump himself.
- [09:13]
A
Yeah. I would just make two final points, which is it really seems like the nuclear issue has become, and I take the nuclear issue very seriously. I don't think Iran should have a nuclear weapon. But I think after Midnight Hammer back last June, they weren't, they weren't close to nuclear weapon. They, their ability to make a nuclear weapon had been severely degraded is apparently what it looks like. So I think that nuclear issue has now become sort of a post hoc rationalization for why we're at the war in the first place.
- [09:41]
B
It's their spinning point. It's, it's their messaging point.
- [09:43]
A
Right, right, right.
- [09:45]
B
Yeah.
- [09:46]
A
The other, the other point I'd make is after the first decapitation strikes that killed, among other people, the former Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, the Iranian system did what it is designed to do. They have a body that elects the next supreme leader. They elected his son, who everyone, I think, thought was going to be the sort of consensus candidate between the clergy and the irgc. It's the Revolutionary Guard Corps, and that's Khamenei's son. Most of we didn't hear about from most for weeks. There was, there were reports that maybe he was injured in some of the initial bombings and that, like, maybe he was like sort of supreme leader in name only because he was bedridden and maybe dying. There were all sorts of reports we heard from a bunch of other people like the speaker of the Majlis, the Parliament, like the foreign minister. Now we're starting to hear statements that at least are in the name of Moshe Bahomenei. So, so this is the one guy that Trump said he would not allow to Become supreme Leader. And not only is he de jure the supreme Leader, but at least apparently there someone is putting out statements in his name. I don't think we've seen video of him yet. But like as you said, yeah, the Iranian system is kind of working as designed. And that's not regime change. That is the regime just carrying on. It would have been no different if Ali Ham and just had a heart attack.
- [11:01]
B
Yeah, they're. They're damaged. To be sure. There have been a lot of facilities destroyed that are connected to the military and to the regime itself. But again, we've seen this in other recent wars. You can destroy a lot of things, you can kill a lot of people, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to achieve your strategic end state, which has been the case in this. And truthfully, Ben, I've noticed a lot of writing by individuals in the last couple days. Those ambassadors, people who are part of former administrations are all suggesting finally what many in the military have said, even Secretary Mattis, General Mattis when he was president. Let's spend a little bit more time on diplomacy before we start using the weapon of choice, which is the military. And I think that's where again, we can chalk up this particular operation as failing in that resolve.
- [11:56]
A
Yeah, I agree. Okay, so speaking of previous wars and before we move on to talk about our dear, dear friend Pete Hegseth, we have heard your pleas and your cries and your requests, and we finally have a Bulwark Book Club led and hosted by the Bulwarks.
- [12:17]
B
Those aren't my pleas and requests.
- [12:19]
A
No, no, sorry. I mean the pleas and cries and requests of the Bulwark members who have been asking for this for years. Bulwark Book Club hosted by the Bulgs on a Charon. And the first installment for June, for next month, it's gonna be like a once a month thing. So you have time to actually read the book. The first installment, the book under discussion, is Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling's own if I Don't Return a Father's Wartime Journal. So if you don't have your copy yet, order it now. Read the book. It is such a good read. It is the kind of read that is fast because you can't put it down.
- [12:55]
B
Well, thank you, Ben. And I'll say a lot of the listeners are right now thinking themselves, boy, that's self serving and nepotism. But first of all, I'm very thankful because Mona reached out to me after she started reading the book and said, hey, we're going to start this book club and we want you to be the first victim, I guess would be the term. But it was a real honor that she would ask me to do this. And I think it's keeping it within the family. But I also think it's appropriate around the date she's doing it for Father's Day. But also the message, talking about character and leadership and the way our nation's military works. So I'm happy to be a part of that and I appreciate Mona asking me.
- [13:36]
A
Yeah, no, you and I had a conversation about this. There's a lot in that book that is about fatherhood because this book is based on letters you wrote to your, to your sons from service in the Gulf War, from, from combat, from, from your deployment. This is going to be a live stream for Bulwark plus members on YouTube and on Substack on Monday, June 8 at 7pm so before then, if you have questions about the book, comments about the book, you want to participate in the book club, you can send us your questions, comments on the on the book club post on the website. We'll put a link in the show notes for that. If you're on YouTube, you can just drop a comment on the video. We'll collect those for the book club and then again, we'll discuss all of that on June 8th at 7pm Eastern. Can't wait. Again, I cannot recommend the book enough. It's really great.
- [14:25]
B
Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate that.
- [14:29]
A
Apro vecha los ahoros the Memorial Day in Los y compra los vasicos pare lo gar pormenos ahoro centadolares en la parria gas de cuatro que madores Char broil Performance series. Stacky and low. Okay, so this next, this next, this next thing we're going to do. We spent a lot of time talking about Pete Hegseth. We're going to do a deep dive, a close reading of Pete Hegseth, because this speech that he gave that you flagged for us to the graduation ceremony at West Point was sort of a cornucopia of everything that is wrong with the way he's running the Department of Defense. So here's how I think we're going to do it. We have a bunch of clips from his speech, and I'm going to just engage in rank political punditry and share my opinions or whatever. But you are not only a graduate of West Point, you were also commander of the Army's training and Doctrine command. Correct. So how we how the Army Accepts new people into its ranks and new officers included was a big part of your responsibility. And you have a lot of experience. So while I do the yelling and screaming, I want you to give the professional analysis of what maybe should have been done instead. Yeah.
- [15:55]
B
It just struck me, Ben, though. Can I make a correction what you said? I was not the commander of Training and Doctrine Command. I was commander of one of the sub elements of Training and Doctrine Command. The initial military training, which takes about 160,000 soldiers and 40,000 officers every year into the force and teaches them how to wear the uniform, how to shoot and salute, and all the other things that soldiers do.
- [16:18]
A
Sorry. Right. So even more specifically applicable to West Point, which is for new officers. All right. Any, any quick, any quick background you want to give about West Point and what it's like to be a cadet there before we start. Because you have to understand when these cadets are feeling, when they're watching Pete Hegseth give this speech.
- [16:35]
B
Yeah, well, first of all, you know, I, I entered West Point in 1971. So that was a hundred years ago. It's probably older than all of our, our listeners. And it was a different place back then. It was during the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War had been going on for several years. Not a whole lot of people wanted to join the Army. That's probably why I got into West Point, because not too many other people wanted to do that. Although we had a class of, of about 1200 new cadets that entered in July of 1971. And it was four years of just intense academic, disciplinary, social, emotional and intellectual rigor. It was all male at the time. Women had not been admitted to the academy at the time. But what's interesting, Ben, I'll share this with you. I've had the opportunity to go back to West Point over the last couple years on multiple occasions because they have a program they call the 50 year affiliation program. So as a graduate of the class of 1975, we were the 50th year affiliation program with the class of 2025, which graduated last May. During that four year period, my classmates would mentor and interact with the cadets that were currently involved in the program. And so I got to see up close and personal not only the way they do classroom activities, physical fitness activities I was part of for a three year assignment. I worked in the Department of Physical Education at West point in the mid-80s. So I knew that program pretty well. But the kinds of rigor that these young men and women go through today is just awe inspiring. If you've ever been there to the academy, and you meet and talk to some of these people. I have concluded that had I attempted to enter with the class of 2025, as opposed to the class of 1975, I would have never got in. These are such good young men and women and so intellectually capable. And to prove my point, they had the highest number of graduates this past year who were going off to medical school. 22. That normally doesn't happen. They've had the most amount of Rhodes Scholars and Marshall Scholars and Truman Scholars that graduate and go on to other programs of any other school. In fact, they're right up there with Harvard and Princeton in terms of their number of Rhodes Scholars. They have an incredible number of young men and women who are going right out to the force to take their place as second lieutenants and lead units in combat, as they've always done. So it is a pretty unique institution, just like all the other military academies. I was there last year in May of 2025, when President Trump gave the graduation address, and that was an interesting event. I won't say anything more about that, but listening to some of the takes from Secretary Hegseth at this year's graduation was also interesting. So you're, you're going to do the very political commentary, and I'll try and do the apolitical analysis of what cadets expect during their graduation versus what they receive this year. And by the way, when I graduated, we had a president at our graduation. It was President Ford, and I don't remember a doggone thing he said because I was a little hungover from the night before and with an excruciating headache, which is most what most graduates do. But we'll try and walk our way through the Secretary Hegseth graduation ceremony.
- [20:27]
A
All right, so we have a lot of clips here. Thanks to producer Matt for getting all these ready. We're going to try to get through as many of them as possible. Let's start with number one.
- [20:35]
C
For all those cadets who've committed minor infractions or violations of the regulations of the United States Military Academy for which ordinary and special punishment has been imposed or is being considered to the corps of cadets, as President Trump might say, a complete and total pardon.
- [21:08]
A
So that was one of the first things he said, and it really set the tone for the speech, which is we're going to get political here, right? I mean, this is some of those complete and total pardons are, you know, the ones that Trump issued to people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th and people who committed a serious crime. So that's sort of the tone setting he had.
- [21:30]
B
Let me elaborate. Okay. In every military academy, at graduation or sometime even during the year, cadets get in trouble. They get demerits. They get what either call room tours or walking tours. So, literally, let me describe this to you. They will walk with a rifle on Saturday and Sunday afternoon or morning to walk off demerits back and forth. It's a mindless event, but it's punishment for some type of disciplinary issue or an infraction, a graduation. And. And sometimes when foreign dignitaries visit the academy, they are allowed to give what the academy calls amnesty. It's not a pardon, it's amnesty. So all the punishment tours are wiped away, and cadets don't have to do the silly things they have to do for their disciplinary actions. So, Secretary Hegseth turning that phrase and saying pardons, I thought personally was inappropriate. It's a turn of phrase for what is normally done at the academy, but it also is an indicator of what President Trump does to individuals who are guilty of crimes. He pardons them. It's not a pardon at West Point. It's amnesty to, okay, your crimes are for. Your disciplinary infractions are forgiven so you can continue on with your cadet life as opposed to, hey, you're being pardoned from prison or a felony account and you don't have to serve any more time. So, yeah, there's a distinct difference between the two, in my view.
- [23:07]
A
Yeah, definitely. Okay, let's. Let's get to clip number two, because I have thoughts about this one and
- [23:12]
C
that you have what it takes to lead Our nation's top 1%, America's most valued treasure, America's son and daughters, the American soldier. You are the real 1%. You are the real 1% of our society. You are the real elite, along with every soldier you'll ever lead. You are the absolute best that America has to offer.
- [23:47]
A
Couldn't help but notice the very unenthusiastic applause there. And frankly, I was happy to hear that because this is a delicate subject, and anyone who listens to this podcast, who watches this show will know that we absolutely honor the courage and very often the heroism of the people who serve in America's armed forces. It is a job that requires personal bravery, that requires discipline, that requires integrity. And the people who join the profession of arms and do so with honor are to be praised. No doubt about it. But Hegseth is saying something a little bit different. Yes, he is telling people in the military, you are better than other Americans. And if you read the whole speech or listen to the whole speech. He's pretty clearly saying you are better than other Americans because your job involves violence. And that is a really uncomfortable thing to hear. You do not want to tell the military you are more worthy, you are better Americans, you count more than the people you are sworn to protect. That's a really dangerous message to send. And that's what I heard him saying and that sent a shiver down my spine.
- [24:52]
B
Well, let me do the analysis of what he said, Ben, if you don't mind, please. He was saying that you are the top 1% of the country. What he's suggesting is that they are better than 99% of the civilian population. That's not the point of the 1%. The 1% number or percentage is the number of 18 to 24 year olds who serve in the military, who serve under uniform. It is not that they're the top 1% of the country. They just happen to be the 1% that decide to serve in the professional force. So there's a difference there. The second thing I would suggest is that he's telling these individuals that they are better than everybody else. And personally, from a military perspective, I'm proud of the army. I served for 38 years too. But I personally believe we hear a little bit too much of that. We have to be a little bit more humble in our approach to military service and not consider the fact that everyone's praising us. And what he did in that statement just there was praise. All of them. Hey, you can congratulate them for going through four years at a very tough military school. You can congratulate them for passing all their courses and their physical fitness exams. That's not what he did. He suggested they were better than all other Americans and that's just not true. There are a lot of really good people in other colleges and universities and even those who don't go to college who can compare with the cadets at West Point as they get ready to graduate and put on their bars. But they will be serving in a top notch military, there's no doubt about that. But one of the things most really good leaders in the military do is continually assess our capability. And if we always think we're too good and always carry the swagger, I think Nemesis, the God Nemesis is always going to follow the God hubris. Whenever you get too caught up in yourself, you're always going to be brought down. So the key point for most military leaders is, hey, let's try and be a little bit more humble.
- [27:13]
A
Pride Goeth before the fall. Okay, Clip number three is much more straightforward and just makes me want to bang my head against the wall. Let's Do Clip 3.
- [27:21]
C
Throughout our storied history, when soldiers said send me, it didn't matter whether they were well equipped or poorly equipped. It didn't matter whether they were stepping into a clear mission or a vague one.
- [27:35]
A
One Fact check, false. Fact check, false. It matters if they're well equipped or poorly equipped. And by the way, part of the job of the Secretary of Defense is to make sure that they are well equipped to win so that you're not sending people to a slaughter so they can actually accomplish the mission. It matters if they're stepping into a clear mission or a vague one. And by the way, Hegseth said this right in the middle of this memorandum of Understanding negotiation period in the middle of the Iran war. He should be thinking about this every second of every day that it matters if the mission is clear. Clear or vague. I just, this is just patently false. He clearly doesn't understand his job or frankly like what the military is for.
- [28:14]
B
Yeah, and, and by the way, the phrase send me comes from a Bible verse and it was initially used by special operations forces. Hey, when the America is in trouble, like the Lord said send me. And it's interesting that he's co opting that to talk about a force that might be sent into harm ways is not well trained or well equipped. And he also suggested that they might not know what the mission is, but they'll go anyway. That scares the hell out of me because that's specifically what civilian leadership in the Department of Defense are supposed to do is to make clear the orders from the President to the military, the uniform leaders of the military to make sure they do know what the mission is and how it, how it relates to national security policies.
- [29:04]
A
Yeah, 100%. I, by the way, I think I counted. We're not going to play all of them. But I think he mentioned God like 8 times in this speech, which is quite a clip. Almost, almost rivals the Bible itself. Okay, let's do, we can skip clip four. I think he, he's, he brags about getting into West Point, but he didn't go to West Point. Yeah, he decided not to even though he was admitted. So that's just, I mean that's just not polite sort of a jerk thing to say.
- [29:32]
B
Well, I think that part. And by the way, you and I have not coordinated these clips. You're showing clips that I didn't know you were going to show, which is great because it allows me to react this way. But the clip, the part in the speech where he said, I, you know, I was also admitted to West Point, or I also had an appointment to West Point, you know, so he was implying, I'm kind of one of you. I'm kind of like you. I'm good enough to be here with you, but I decided to do something else. The question is, hey, Pete, what'd you decide to do? You know, because I had a choice too, between some civilian universities in West Point, and I think most of the individuals in that class probably did too. They probably had multiple offers from various universities, and they decided to choose the harder one and go to the military academy where it is rigorous and. And somewhat draconian in terms of its approach.
- [30:26]
A
So, so let's. He mentions where he went, what he chose instead of West Point. In clip five.
- [30:30]
B
Yeah.
- [30:32]
C
Now I know there have been foolish and feckless leaders in the recent past who've tried their hardest to make it more normal. We saw woke and weak leaders trying to make West Point look like woke. Princeton, which happens to be my long lost and lost alma mater, they embraced the DEI craze and tried to introduce diversity and inclusion studies. And they hired professors who advocated for anti American ideologies right here in these halls, but no more. West Point is set apart. It's special. It's above politics. Success here is based on merit. It's how you perform that matters.
- [31:20]
A
So once again, I'm going to say something that perhaps for legal reasons you can't, which is the Secretary of Defense cannot count because the school these cadets were admitted to was run by the people he's now calling foolish and feckless and anti American. And by the way, if you're saying we're going to get anti American ideology, whatever that means, out of Prince, out of. Out of. I'm sorry, not out of Princeton, out of West Point. Well, that is political. So it's not above politics. It's part of politics, which you could argue is true, but like, you can't have it both ways. You can't say we're gonna, you know, as political leaders, impose our preferred political. Our preferred educational program. But it's not political. It either is or it isn't. This is. I mean, help me out here.
- [32:04]
B
The. The specifics are lacking in terms of what he's talking about. Then, you know, I don't know what the woke ideology we were taught, the anti American sentiment. You know, if you have, you know, a course on world's religion, which I took as a cadet, which was one of my favorite courses ever because it taught me about other religion. Because I'm learning about Muslims and Sikhs and Buddhists and, you know, name that tune. Does that make me woke?
- [32:43]
A
Why would we want to teach a young Mark Hertling about Muslims? Why might that be useful to him?
- [32:49]
B
Truthfully, it was interesting. It wasn't useful, but it became useful later on, Much like some of the engineering principles I learned early on that I didn't think I'd ever use again. That's education. You try and broaden the mind. A good institution. A good educational institution, in Hertling's view. I don't know if it's. Hegtest's view widens your aperture. It teaches you about the world. It helps you conduct yourself in a way that you understand other cultures, especially in the military. I will quote the very woke former chairman of the joint chiefs, which will kill us in this. If the president sees this. General Milley, who said, I study Marxism so I can understand my enemy. I study communism and fascism so I can understand the people I might have to fight. You know the. You know, there's a clause witzian term that says know yourself. Well, no, I'm sorry, It's Sun Tzu.
- [33:48]
A
Yeah.
- [33:48]
B
Know yourself, know the terrain and know the enemy, and in a thousand battles, you'll never be defeated. That's kind of bastardizing, that quote. But it's the point. You have to know your environment. And truthfully, I don't know what he's talking about in terms of the West Point education because it's not woke. It's pretty damned hard. And these kids are competing with others that are getting great education. And I personally think that that's what we want in our officers. The history department at West Point has a motto, and it's really fascinating. I don't think you know about this one. Their motto is most of the history we teach was from. From those that we taught. Came from those that we taught. And it's perfectly succinct. That says if you look at American history and the different phases of American history, those from the service academies, especially West Point, in my view, contributed to the building of the nation. And by the way, the mission of the military academy is to build leaders of character. And that's what, you know, that's what they're trying to do across the board.
- [35:01]
A
Well, that covers some of the academic side. Clip 6 is about the physical side of their education.
- [35:06]
C
Yeah, not fat. You are disciplined. I like that.
- [35:14]
A
Section comments on his own speech as he's giving it. Amateur hour.
- [35:20]
C
They still got a few years, don't they?
- [35:23]
A
I don't know what that means.
- [35:25]
C
You're fit, not fat. You are disciplined, not distracted. Many of you, even in your short time in uniform. Have endured what I call the slow slide of the U.S. army. You've seen standards lowered. You've seen an obsession with race and gender. You've seen the watering down of discipline codes weakened and traditions tossed aside in the name of political correctness. Statues taken down, paintings placed in the basement.
- [35:55]
A
Okay, so once again, he can't count. Because if they have seen in their time in uniform. The slow slide of the U.S. army. That would be from the army they joined as cadets into the previous administration to the army they are in now under this administration. Which I don't think is what Hegseth meant to say. But it is what he said. So I guess take it from him.
- [36:14]
B
All right, I'm gonna assess the speech. Okay. This is great.
- [36:18]
A
Real quick. I just say real quick. If I correct that when he says paintings placed in the basement. I believe that was a. An enormous painting of Robert E. Lee that they took down from the library. Is that right? Famous trader.
- [36:27]
B
Yeah.
- [36:28]
A
Okay, great. Sorry. Go ahead.
- [36:29]
B
Yeah. The section he was pointing to, as he looked off to the right. Were all the underclassmen. Because they make the sophomores, freshmen and juniors go to the graduation. And they're sitting way up in Mikey Stadium, the football stadium, in the bleachers. So when they were cheering about. You're not fat. Many of them are. They haven't met the height, weight standards. And my old department that I worked for for three years, the Department of Physical Education. Made sure that they passed all of their PT tests. And they maintained their height, weight standards. Some did not. And they had to have a little special attention. So the cheering was going on. Had to do with the hypocrisy of the statement. And what the cadets go through. The second thing about just the slide of standards. Again, I don't know what he's talking about. He's also talking to a graduating class and the entire corps of cadets. That is, number one, about 20% women. And about 25% minority black Hispanics. I think I have those figures right. And he's basically telling them that they've been given an unfair advantage over the last couple years. And that's just not true. There are no bendings of the standards for women or for men of different races and colors. And that. Truthfully, Ben, this is where I'm going to get a little political. That infuriates me because, like you said, he's talking to individuals who have started the academy before President Trump became president, and they've gone through two plus years of their academy life under another administration, and nothing has changed. There's nothing that's changed that's causing. Creating what he considers the normal approach to training the military. It's just not true.
- [38:28]
A
Yeah, I. It really does a disservice to those people who have met the standards and serve, in some cases, excelled, even within the context of West Point. Who is now saying you were, you know, a DEI hire? Basically, yeah.
- [38:41]
B
By the way, if I can say something, I'm going to swing my camera around because on my window you can see off to my chair. The guy on the horse.
- [38:48]
A
Yeah.
- [38:49]
B
That is a statue of the Buffalo Soldier. I happened to be on the Buffalo Soldier Committee when they appointed a statue at West Point that was installed a couple of years ago, and it honored the black cavalry officers and soldiers who trained all of the cadets from 1904 to 1947. They were responsible for all the generals that fought World War I and World War II. They could serve at West Point, but they couldn't go outside the gate in Highland Falls because of discrimination. One of those Buffalo Soldiers eventually became mayor of Highland Falls, which is right outside. And that statue, which is down right near the entrance near the Thayer Hotel, is the gathering place for most of the African American cadets that graduate so they can pin on their bars at a place that honors their race. Now, if that's wokeism, I'm sorry, I agree with it. I was one of two white guys on the committee that helped build that statue. It was generated by a guy named General Gordon, who was the first black commandant in the 1970s. And it just shows that this is an inclusive organization with a lot of diversity that comes together to be unified.
- [40:14]
A
Amen. We're skipping clip seven. We're going to clip eight.
- [40:20]
C
Political leaders with. With ideological agendas and weak military leaders who were just looking to curry favor for the next star, allowed our cherished army to slide off our true north.
- [40:32]
A
You can't slide you. That doesn't make sense.
- [40:34]
C
Our warriors will snap it back. You are the future. Others may have allowed it to slide away. You will not. You will restore our army and I will empower you to do it.
- [40:52]
A
So this is a theme he returned to a few times throughout the speech. You next generation of leaders who have been molded by us, which isn't really true. You're going to change the army from the bottom up. And you're going to tell all those woke officers above you what's really happening because you have my backing. You've been through basically the entire chain of command from second lieutenant all the way to lieutenant general. Is that how it works? Is that how we want it to work?
- [41:15]
B
No, it's not. And, and you know, he, Secretary Heath, I think has the mindset of a captain, which is what he was before he entered the reserves and became a major. It's always those bastards at higher headquarters that are only fighting for promotion. Now certainly, Ben, there are general officers who want to get promoted as part of ambition or ego. I personally, I used to kiddingly say that the army just kept promoting me because they wanted to prove they had a sense of humor. But truthfully, I was never fighting for a star or the next promotion. It was always in service to the country. And that might sound self aggrandizing, but it's true. I love serving in uniform. I love serving the soldiers that run under my command. There are some that appear like they're ego driven and want a promotion. But that comment right there is what you hear from a lot of young lieutenants or captains about, oh, it's those bastards at higher headquarters that don't know what they're doing. I'll tell a quick story. When, when I was teaching in the Department of Physical Education, my next door neighbor in a duplex was then Captain Marty Dempsey, who became the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. And we used to mow our lawn on Saturday afternoon and have a beer and then go out for a run or in a different order than that. But whenever we'd be sitting around after mowing our grass, we'd always talk about how screwed up the army was. And if somebody would just give us command of the army, we'd fix it. Well, 30 years later, General Dempsey is now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and I'm the commander of U.S. army Europe. And we were having dinner together at my house in Heidelberg and he sat across the table with a bunch of young authors around. You know, Mark, remember when we used to say they just gave us rank, we'd fix the army? Well, it's a whole lot harder to do than it is to talk about. And that's what Hegseth is doing right now. This whole wokeism and ideological slide is just bonk.
- [43:20]
A
We're going to get into wokeism in a second. I want to speed us up a little bit here, but producer Matt, do you think it's possible to play clip 9. And then immediately clip 12. See if we can do it.
- [43:30]
C
The single dumbest phrase in military history was peddled in our army only a few short years ago. You've all heard it maybe in your first two years at West Point. Oh, so we can count Our diversity is our strength. The single dumbest phrase in military history. We had generals saying this with a straight face on national television. It was absolute nonsense. Now, these sorts of silly things can be laughed at when they occur in a civilian lounge or civilian faculty lounge or debated in graduate seminars, but they cannot be tolerated in our formations. These ideas are what get people killed. Diversity is not our strength. Unity is our strength. The call is send us not send. He not send, she not send they them.
- [44:36]
A
That's not a plus,
- [44:39]
C
does not grade on a curve. And you can't throw your pronouns at the enemy.
- [44:47]
A
General, I think he was thinking of you there. You were one of those generals on TV saying, diversity is our strength.
- [44:53]
B
And I will say it again right now, diversity is our strength. And as you were talking, Ben, I don't know if you noticed, I leaned over to my box that I talked about this weekend on Memorial Day, and it just so happened I picked out a couple of cards. Staff Sergeant Dutron, who was Vietnamese first generation, killed in action 2007. Staff Sergeant Kita Davis, a mother, a medic, African American, who had three children at home, was killed in action as a staff sergeant when she took the place of. Of a specialist who was sick and couldn't go out on patrol. Private E2, Jonathan Falanico, a Samoan, the son of a sergeant major in his same unit, was killed in action three weeks after he came from basic training and became a part of our force. And his father, the sergeant major, had to take him home, his body home, to his mother in Germany. Captain Tory Mallard, West Point graduate, African American. These are all diverse individuals. And if you read the army manual on leadership that's been around, oh, I don't know, since 1787, when von Steuben wrote the first edition. It will talk about how character is built from an individual's background, values, visions, and. And how they grew up. So you have to take the diverse background of those four cards that I just showed you on the top of my 253 today and say, what made each of them different? How do we take their differences and combine them into that unit that Secretary Hegseth is talking about, being unified? That's the challenge of real leadership. They don't just come together. You have to understand who they are and how they contribute to a bigger team. That's what leadership is all about. And I'm sorry for getting emotional, but that comment about diversity is not our strength is just bullshit. And I'll say it emphatically on that, because it is. And truthfully, I fought for 38 years to take very diverse units and combine them together, to unify them. But you gotta start somewhere. They don't start all unified.
- [47:15]
A
I would only add that every military is in some way a reflection of the country that. That generates it. And one thing that almost everyone in the Trump administration seems unable to accept is that we are a diverse country, period. We are. It's in the demographic data, it's in the census. So if you think diversity isn't our strength, then you must not have a very high opinion of America.
- [47:42]
B
You know, it's interesting. I just. When you just said that, I hearkened back to another movie. Sonny Bunch and I were talking about war movies. This one's not so much a war movie, but it's stripes. Remember when, you know, in Stripes, the main character grabbed, you know, the other soldier in basic training and said, oh, look at it.
- [48:03]
C
He's.
- [48:03]
B
He's a mutt. He's just like all the mutts we. We have in the United States that come together and become strong, you know? Yeah, we're mutts. We're all mutts. We're a society of mutts that have come together and built a unique culture and organization that, you know, no one can say we should just be a bunch of white men in one country.
- [48:23]
A
And that's the most beautiful political idea in the history of the world. Okay, I'm going to skip the next clip. I just want to read it to save a little time Reading verbatim here from the transcript. What makes us different is that we don't fight because we hate what's in front of us. We fight because we love what's behind us. Our family, our freedom, and our flag. It's actually sort of a lovely thought. I think it's wrong. I think a lot of other countries, militaries, fight because they love their countries. I think most of them. Is that your experience working with dozens and dozens of other countries, that they fight because they love their country, that they're all basically patriotic?
- [48:57]
B
Yeah, that's all a part of why we fight. But the biggest reason soldiers fight, in my experience, is because of the people next to him. It's that diverse organization of people that come together hearkening. Back when I went to west point from St. Louis, Missouri, which was my hometown. My initial squad had a Cuban immigrant, a black soldier who eventually became Secretary of Defense. You know, Lloyd Austin was my classmate.
- [49:28]
A
Oh, wow.
- [49:29]
B
A guy named Manny Gonzalez, whose father was a freedom fighter in Cuba, was my classmate. My roommate was a Long Islander, who I had never met a New Yorker before. That's the kind of diversity. And by the end of our four years together, we were a very strong bond of people. And that's how you make a fighting force. It's fighting for the individuals to your left and right, how you don't want to let them down and. And how they don't want you to let them down. That's what you truly fight for. The flag and democracy and the family back home. That's all part of the equation, but it's mostly getting that team together that fights in a very ethical and professional way that's important.
- [50:15]
A
We've got our last clip here. Maybe, maybe the most infuriating one we'll see, but it's a little bit long, so let's play clip number 14 and we'll get out of here and stop torturing people with this stuff.
- [50:27]
C
Lawyers don't run companies. Lawyers don't run battalions. Commanders do. No more walking on eggshells. Order is being restored. And that's all I ever wanted from my chain of command. People who let me do my job, empowered me to do it, and then supported me when it was done. No matter what, President Trump and I will have your back when. When tough decisions are made, especially decisions made in a split second, in the heat of battle, that office, air conditioned offices in Washington, D.C. will never have. Understand your. Your hands are untied.
- [51:07]
A
So, first of all, the first thing he said got a little cut off, was lawyers don't run companies. Pretty sure that's false. If you look at the Fortune 500 companies, I bet a lot of the CEOs are law school graduates. Lawyers don't run battalions.
- [51:19]
B
Sure.
- [51:19]
A
I mean, the thing that really bothered me about this is that I want to read this slowly so you can hear exactly what he said. No matter what, President Trump and I will have your back when tough decisions are made, especially decisions made in a split second in the heat of battle. No matter what, no matter if it's the right decision or the wrong decision, if it's made by the right person or the wrong person for the right reasons or the wrong reasons, your hands are untied. No matter what, we will have your back. Is that not an invitation to war crimes it is.
- [51:55]
B
It absolutely is. And it isn't the first time that the Secretary has implied those kind of things. In fact, watching Admiral Brad Cooper testify before Congress a few days ago, he was put on the spot about the no quarter rule. And he refused to answer the question because his superior, the Secretary of Defense, had said, no quarter, which means kill everybody, which is a war crime. It's a war crime. And what he was saying at the beginning, lawyers don't run companies. He was talking about military companies and military battalions. And they don't. They are advisors to commanders. Commanders have the authority, but they also need help in terms of legal ramifications, rule of law, rule of land warfare, Hague Convention, Geneva Convention requirements. And so I depended on my lawyer all the time for advice, for legal advice. Now, sometimes you say, hey, how do we get around that? How do we make it legal so we can conduct this operation? And if the lawyer says, you can't, it would be a war crime if you did it any other way. You have to take that advice. The issue is, Ben, that the military is a profession. And there are various elements that make a profession a profession. One of them is you have a set of values and a sense of ethics for your profession. The second is you are continually trained and exercised in the manner of conducting your professional art. When you're talking about just disregarding all legal implications and. And expecting the President, the commander in chief, the Secretary of Defense, his primary advisor for defense matters, to say, no matter what, we have your back. It's just not true. And we've seen that in a couple situations so far in this administration and in the first Trump administration, where war criminals, people who murdered civilians, were allowed to go free and we're paroled. And that, to me, will create a lack of discipline within the force and will cause problems which put our nation at risk.
- [54:13]
A
Well, I do have a little bit of good news. There's no more speech left. That was basically the end of it. He just wrapped up after that. So we don't have to torture ourselves or our wonderful command post audience with any more of that from Pete Hegseth. I'm about to go put my head through a wall. I don't know about you this morning. Whole thing just maddens me so much. But that's why I'm grateful we have command posts for me to vent all my spleen and, you know, yell at you about it.
- [54:35]
B
Well, we. We had a plan, Ben, where you were going to be venting, and I was going to be analytical, but I lost my stuff. At the end because some of the things he said to that class of 20, 26 of the US Military Academy was egregious. And it was, it was really discouraging to hear new lieutenants who were about to go out into the force, hear some of the message that he gave this year and some of the message President Trump gave last year because it doesn't correlate with young soldiers who are about to become members of the profession of arms when they pin on that second lieutenant bar later on in that day up there.
- [55:21]
A
Yeah, we got problems. Reminder, if you want to see what real leadership looks like, the book club, the book club for if I Don't return a Father's Wartime Journal. The book, the live stream is going to be on substack and YouTube with the bulwarks on Mona, Charon and of course, General Mark Hartling. Monday, June 8th at 7pm Go to the bulwark.com leave your questions, leave your comments. It's going to be a great discussion. I will certainly be tuning in. And general, we did another long one today, but I think it was good for us. So thanks for, thanks for doing it with me.
- [55:52]
B
Yeah, we exercised some of our demons, didn't we, Ben? Thank you for that. And thanks for allowing me to comment and try and provide analysis to things that just go beyond the pale and analyzing. So appreciate it.
- [56:04]
A
Cheers. We'll see you next week for command post.
- [56:06]
B
You got it.