The Hegseth "incident."

[George K]

[89th]

I'm a bit more concern that Hegseth didn't know what ASEAN is or what countries are included.

That should be SecDef 101 stuff.

I'm guessing he will be confirmed, but this confirmation hearing is playing out as expected... both sides cheerleading or criticizing him with some clear gaps in knowledge and decision making maturity.

Article:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/asean-stumped-hegseth-senate-hearing-080133857.html

Link to video

[George K]

@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":

I'm a bit more concern that Hegseth didn't know what ASEAN is or what countries are included.

That should be SecDef 101 stuff.

Yeah. I thought of that as his "Aleppo" moment. Can you imagine Sen. Kennedy grilling someone on that?

[Jolly]

[Jolly]

@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":

I'm a bit more concern that Hegseth didn't know what ASEAN is or what countries are included.

That should be SecDef 101 stuff.

Yeah. I thought of that as his "Aleppo" moment. Can you imagine Sen. Kennedy grilling someone on that?

That's his Achilles heel.

I think he's going to be very good at rank and file issues...Recruiting problems, cost plus contracts, base housing, pay grades, etc. On the big organizational stuff, not so much.

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K @LuFins-Dad

I somewhat agree. If someone in the military is going to be discharged for an adultery, there are usually other problems that that person has.

I dont think we know if he was reprimanded or not for disobeying an order to engage the enemy.

But, both of those are still against the Uniform Code of Conduct. The whole basis of the military in the US, even more than in other jobs in government or the private side, is that a soldier IS held to a higher standard and that it is necessary to follow the rules and orders without hesitation, weather or not you agree with them or not. As far as I know in the military, when a "superior officer" gives an order, it is not a negotiation.

That concerns me. Kind like the broken window policing. "Yeah, he had adultery a few times. Ah, lots of people do it. Yeah, he disobeyed some orders. Ah, he's not the only one. He still okay to lead the organization and have to judge people who get called out for the same 'infractions'. "

Why have rules then? It was said in this thread or another thread, but if he is willing to break rules like this, is there not the potential for other rules to be broken?

(but my biggest concern is still that he is not qualified. Leading a group of 100 soldiers is way way way different from leading an organization with 3MM people and USD$billions of dollars of budget)

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@George-K @LuFins-Dad

I somewhat agree. If someone in the military is going to be discharged for an adultery, there are usually other problems that that person has.

I dont think we know if he was reprimanded or not for disobeying an order to engage the enemy.

But, both of those are still against the Uniform Code of Conduct. The whole basis of the military in the US, even more than in other jobs in government or the private side, is that a soldier IS held to a higher standard and that it is necessary to follow the rules and orders without hesitation, weather or not you agree with them or not. As far as I know in the military, when a "superior officer" gives an order, it is not a negotiation.

That concerns me. Kind like the broken window policing. "Yeah, he had adultery a few times. Ah, lots of people do it. Yeah, he disobeyed some orders. Ah, he's not the only one. He still okay to lead the organization and have to judge people who get called out for the same 'infractions'. "

Why have rules then? It was said in this thread or another thread, but if he is willing to break rules like this, is there not the potential for other rules to be broken?

(but my biggest concern is still that he is not qualified. Leading a group of 100 soldiers is way way way different from leading an organization with 3MM people and USD$billions of dollars of budget)

Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. Eisenhower cheated on his wife. Patton was a 24kt prick. MacArthur was a prima donna surrounded by Yes Men.

[89th]

@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@89th said in The Hegseth "incident.":

I'm a bit more concern that Hegseth didn't know what ASEAN is or what countries are included.

That should be SecDef 101 stuff.

Yeah. I thought of that as his "Aleppo" moment. Can you imagine Sen. Kennedy grilling someone on that?

That's his Achilles heel.

I think he's going to be very good at rank and file issues...Recruiting problems, cost plus contracts, base housing, pay grades, etc. On the big organizational stuff, not so much.

You might be surprised, I'm actually rooting for this guy. At an extremely high level, we need to drastically increase the combat strength, improve recruiting, and never let up on the pedal of battle readiness including technical innovation. I mentioned in another thread, it's very easy to see a scenario where China attacks our country and makes far more progress than you might expect. Fast forward, you watch as your kids are taken into prison camps. Yes, extreme... but the only thing preventing that is a strong military (and I suppose if you can rely on them, strong allies).

[George K]

@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":

Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk.

If I remember Chernow's biography correctly, Grant was a drinker, but was never drunk during battles, etc. He drank during his "off time."

Eisenhower cheated on his wife.

That was with a secretary, iirc.

Patton was a 24kt prick.

That should be considered a bonus.

But to hear the Democrats complain about marital infidelity is laugh-worthy.

[taiwan_girl]

@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":

Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. Eisenhower cheated on his wife. Patton was a 24kt prick. MacArthur was a prima donna surrounded by Yes Men.

Three of the above are not illegal in the US military. The fourth example is alleged. (From my very simple internet research).

Anyway, I am a bit surprised that you, of all people, would be okay with a soldier disobeying the Uniform Code of Conduct more than once and then being "promoted" to lead that same military.

[Renauda]

@George-K

If I remember Chernow's biography correctly, Grant was a drinker, but was never drunk during battles, etc. He drank during his "off time."

You are right and both Chernow and J. E. Smith also point out that although it appears Grant had a very low tolerance for alcohol, there is no evidence that he was a habitual drunk or casebook alcoholic either.

[LuFins Dad]

@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":

Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. Eisenhower cheated on his wife. Patton was a 24kt prick. MacArthur was a prima donna surrounded by Yes Men.

Three of the above are not illegal in the US military. The fourth example is alleged. (From my very simple internet research).

Anyway, I am a bit surprised that you, of all people, would be okay with a soldier disobeying the Uniform Code of Conduct more than once and then being "promoted" to lead that same military.

You just contradicted yourself. You detailed how infidelity is grounds for dismissal then when Jolly mentions Eisenhower, you comment that it’s not illegal in the military.

As far as illegal goes, infidelity is an actual felony punishable by jail in some states. It’s a misdemeanor in others. It’s one of those laws that aren’t enforced. Two thirds of our senior command would be disqualified for infidelity.

The only real concern is the order on when to fire. I would like to know more details about that, but a unit leader does have some leeway in a combat situation to modify or change orders if they feel it’s necessary. Now, there will be reviews, and they damn well better have been good decisions on the part of the commander, or they are toast. The fact that Hegseth was not drummed out and was not demoted speaks volumes.

[taiwan_girl]

@LuFins-Dad said in The Hegseth "incident.":

You just contradicted yourself. You detailed how infidelity is grounds for dismissal then when Jolly mentions Eisenhower, you comment that it’s not illegal in the military.

Sorry, I was not very clear.

The three things I was referring to as being legal were:

drinking - Grant
being a prick - Patton
being a prima donna - McArthur

The alleged activity I was referring to was Eisenhower.

As I said, usually when someone in the military is fired for adultery, there are usually other factors that also are part of it. It is rarely just being an adultery.

(Hegseth) has said he told his troops to ignore commands about when to fire on potential enemies.

I do understand that there is some leeway in a field of battle. But still a concern for me at least. At some level, ignoring direct orders is a problem.

He may not have been officially drummed out. But could have been that he was told he was not going to get promoted to the next level. That is kind of the unofficial way to let a military guy know that it is time to look for another job. Or, "we are going to transfer you to XX position", knowing that the person would not be willing to do so, and would leave the military instead. (Having said that, I have no idea of his time he left the military and the reasons for leaving.)

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":

@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":

Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. Eisenhower cheated on his wife. Patton was a 24kt prick. MacArthur was a prima donna surrounded by Yes Men.

Three of the above are not illegal in the US military. The fourth example is alleged. (From my very simple internet research).

Anyway, I am a bit surprised that you, of all people, would be okay with a soldier disobeying the Uniform Code of Conduct more than once and then being "promoted" to lead that same military.

I have it on good authority that a soldier that won't fuck won't fight.

[George K]

LOL. Seen on X:

"Did anyone ask Pete Hegseth if he’d disappear for weeks without telling anyone like Lloyd Austin did?"

[taiwan_girl]

Hmmm. I am just surprised, that if you take the partisan from this pick, that people think Mr. Hegseth is a good choice.

The column seems to have a lot more entries than the column

(and yes, I know that there have been minister picks in the past that were less qualified. But.......... that still does not justify this one. If you look at importance, I think that the Minister of Defense is one of the more important Minister positions.)

[Jolly]

The military needs a radical overhaul and you want more of the same.

[George K]

I think she missed the point.

[taiwan_girl]

@Renauda said in The Hegseth "incident.":

the country risk than Gabbard. That woman should not have access to anything classified above Personal & Confidential.

Sen. McConnell is a crucial vote
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/17/mcconnell-gabbard-senate-confirmation-trump

President-elect Trump Trump's transition thinks Gabbard, the nominee for director of national intelligence, can get confirmed even with a "no" vote from McConnell. But his public opposition — if it materializes — could open the door to other GOP defectors.
Gabbard's team isn't banking on McConnell's vote, sources tell Axios.
McConnell is studiously avoiding public or private indications that he'll support Trump's nominees, three people familiar with the matter tell Axios.
Voting against Gabbard would resume hostilities between McConnell and Trump. It could have implications for big policy questions down the line, from funding Ukraine to raising tariffs.

McConnell said on the Senate floor on Thursday that he'll support nominees to "senior national security roles whose record and experience will make them immediate assets, not liabilities, in the pursuit of peace through strength."
When asked specifically about Gabbard, McConnell told CNN's Manu Raju he was not ready to announce whether he can back her.

[89th]

Why did she leave her boots in a field? Seems unnecessary. Hopefully she had flip flops or good socks.