Six Questions for National Security Analyst David Isenberg on Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth and the Questions He Should Have Been Asked During His Confirmation Hearings
"Hegseth would be the most grossly unqualified defense secretary to hold the job" since the Pentagon was established in 1947. He's a walking, talking pile of hair gel."
“A walking, talking pile of hair gel,” as Isenberg said of Hegseth, may be the most generous way to describe him. Photo via Wikimedia Commons/Public domain.
David Isenberg is an independent analyst and and writer on military, foreign policy, and national security issues. A Navy veteran and the author of "Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq,” he has testified before Congress about private military and security contracting, which he writes about at his website. Isenberg recently replied to six questions about Pete Hegseth, President Trump’s nominee to be defense secretary. Our interview was lightly edited for length and clarity.
How do you rate Pete Hegseth’s qualifications to lead the Pentagon? Does he have the background and skills required for the job?
If confirmed, Hegseth would be the most grossly unqualified defense secretary to hold the job since President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act on July 26, 1947, which led to the creation of the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense is not the Warrior-in-Chief. He is the CEO, nominally speaking, of a vast global business with an annual budget approaching one trillion dollars – more than a trillion if you include military-related expenditures in the national security budget – with a workforce of about 3 million military and civilian personnel, and hundreds of major facilities in over 80 countries.
Hegseth’s duties would include setting budgets, overseeing major weapons systems programs, implementing policies on topics ranging from operational deployments to health and welfare of the troops, as well as being the president’s lead advisor on military affairs, to name just a few of the responsibilities. It’s a staggering array of requirements that no single person could be truly qualified to handle, and even people who seemed reasonably well qualified have turned out to be screwups – cue McNamara in Vietnam or Rumsfeld in Iraq. But the responsibility is so great, you want to do everything possible to ensure you get the best possible person. Pete Hegseth is not that person. He's a walking, talking pile of hair gel.
When she announced she would vote against confirming Hegseth on January 16, Senator Tammy Duckworth said she disagreed with Trump about nearly everything during his first term, but she voted to confirm both James Mattis and Mark Esper when he nominated them for the same role, but Hegseth never ran the entire Army, like Esper, or even been the leader of thousands of people, like Mattis. She summarized things well when she said, “Mr. Hegseth likes to say our military is a great meritocracy. I agree. During his time in uniform, Pete Hegseth never commanded a unit with more than 200 personnel. Meanwhile, on the civilian side, both organizations he led went into debt. In fact, he so badly mismanaged one of them that they had to bring in a forensic accountant to clean up the mess he had made. That’s it. Those are his only supposed qualifications to head up one of the most complex, important organizations in the world.
Can you put that in practical terms? What are some of the biggest problems likely to arise if Hegseth is put in charge of the Pentagon? And why would Trump nominate him in the first place?
I’m going to defer to Chris Bassford, a military historian, former US Army artillery officer, recently retired professor from National Defense University and instructor at Fort Bragg Special Warfare Center. His 1988 book, “The Spit-Shine Syndrome,” is a must read for those wanting to understand how military mediocrities can survive and be promoted. Bassford recently told me that “given the sheer numbers of service members who might die in war, it is an absolute necessity that the defense secretary speaks his mind without fear or favor, even if means differing with the president.” Hegseth will not stand up to Trump if needed because he’s “a sycophant like all of Trump’s national security nominees, Bassford said — and that’s also why Trump picked him.
What about Hegseth’s personal conduct? How do they factor in to the question of his suitability to be defense secretary?
I read the police report regarding Hegseth’s alleged sexual assault. Here’s an excerpt: “Hegseth took her phone from her hands. Jane Doe stated she got up and tried to leave the room, but Hegseth blocked the door with his body. Jane Doe remembered saying ‘no” a lot.”
You can argue that since this was settled out of court nothing was proven, but given Hegseth’s frequent repetition that it’ an “anonymous smear” during the confirmation hearing, it’s important to note that it wasn’t in fact an anonymous allegation and there’s a lot of evidence that indicates something very bad happened. The redacted summary of the police report reads : “_________, a nurse at Kaiser Permanente in _________ reported suspicious circumstances to have occurred at the Hyatt Hotel at One Old Golf Course Road in Monterey, after a patient came in requesting a sexual assault exam. The patient was allegedly sexually assaulted at the Hyatt Hotel between 10-7-17 and 10-18-17. I recommend this case be forwarded to investigations for their review.”
As Hegseth was a civilian at that point the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply, so I’ll skip over the part about how that’s a court martial offense. Instead, I’ll just say that a leader of any organization, must lead by example, especially a military organization where terms like “honorable conduct” are not supposed to be just words.
What questions should Hegseth have been asked at his nomination hearing? What did the committee miss?
Here’s a list.
Did you read “On War” by Clausewitz? Ever read anything by Mahan, Mcinder, Jomini, Keegan, or Sun Tzu? Anything on former Secretary of Defense General Jim Mattis’s professional reading list?
What PME — Professional Military Education — did take during your time in the military? (Hint: That’s another rhetorical question, see this piece from the “Duffel Blog,” a military satire site.)
What are the existing unified commands?
You lobbied heavily in favor of releasing the Blackwater contractors who were found guilty of killing 17 and injuring 20 Iraqi civilians at Nisour Square in Baghdad in 2007. What’s your view on the Penatgon’s reliance on private military and security contractors?
How do you reconcile President Trump’s threat to use military force to acquire Greenland with the obligation to defend it under Article 5 of NATO?
If President Trump asked for your general opinion about the advisability of a US military strike on Iran, what would you tell him?
How do you reconcile your support for veterans with your claim they are getting unnecessary disability benefits?
What’s your opinion about the contribution US allies make?
How do your reconcile the US military's primary obligation to protect and preserve the Constitution and its emphasis on freedom of religion with your advocacy of Christian Nationalism and apparent tolerance of a revolutionary theocratic vision for the overthrow of the United States?
What do you think of Eisenhower’s farewell address and his warning that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex?
Is there any chance Hegseth’s nomination will be rejected?
Senate Republicans seem poised to approve all of Trump’s picks for cabinet secretaries and other appointees that require confirmation. As long as they demonstrate proper obeisance and submissiveness, demonstrating that their primary qualification is their loyalty to Trump, he’s good. I asked Bassford the same question, and he agrees, even though he believes the email his mother sent him about the alleged sexual assault — which said “You are an abuser of women — that is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego” — should have done him in.” Bassford also said the Democrats are defeatist and are saving their ammo for other battles, though it’s hard to think what could be a more important battle than this one.
What do you anticipate in the way of Trump II foreign and military policy?
In respect to Ukraine, now that Trump successfully pressured to accept a ceasefire in Gaza, he’ll undoubtedly want to cut a deal with Putin. But he has far less leverage, so I expect the war will go on until Ukraine no longer is able to continue fighting.