PDF Summary:The War on Warriors, by Pete Hegseth

The United States military is undergoing a transformation—but not the kind that strengthens national defense. In The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth argues that progressive ideologies focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion are being implemented throughout the armed forces, fundamentally changing the military's traditional warrior culture. He contends that these shifts prioritize social engineering over combat readiness and effectiveness.

Hegseth examines how these ideological changes are being implemented through formal mechanisms like mandatory training programs and social media monitoring. He also explores the consequences of these policies, including changes to physical standards and the integration of gender in combat units. Throughout, Hegseth maintains that these transformations represent an intentional effort to remake the military according to a particular political vision rather than focusing on defense capabilities and readiness.

(continued)...

Implementation of Ideological Subversion within the Military

Hegseth argues that ideological subversion is weakening the military's effectiveness. He claims the military is serving as a testing ground for social engineering experiments and is being forced to adopt the same divisive, Marxist ideology that has taken over universities.

(Shortform note: While Hegseth argues that internal ideological changes and experimental social policies are weakening military effectiveness, historical evidence suggests that such changes don't necessarily lead to a decline in performance. In All That We Can Be, Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler examine the racial integration of the US Army and find that the military's commitment to equal opportunity and racial fairness didn't undermine its effectiveness.)

In the following sections, we will explore the formal mechanisms of ideological control within the armed forces and the actors and incentives driving this subversion.

Formal Mechanisms of Ideological Control

Hegseth thinks the military uses formal mechanisms to control ideology. For example, in that year, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin instructed all Department of Defense personnel to pause operations for a day. This required a complete lowering of their status from a readiness stance. Each unit was given two months to finish vital corrective training on "extremism." The stand-down was prompted by January 6, 2021, when some active-duty military personnel and reservists were among those who breached the US Capitol.

(Shortform note: Austin didn’t order the entire Defense Department to stop all operations for a day. Instead, he told each unit to schedule a session on extremism within a certain time frame. This approach allowed units to plan the training without disrupting essential operations. The goal was to address concerns about extremism in the ranks while maintaining military readiness.)

That April, Austin directed the Department of Defense to form a “Countering Extremism Working Group,” headed by Bishop Garrison, a self-proclaimed enthusiastic supporter of Critical Race Theory. Garrison would be responsible for assessing soldiers by reviewing their social media for evidence of extremist behaviors, deciding their suitability for service or promotion. A 17-page Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency presentation was leaked in March 2022, describing extremism and insider dangers within the Department of Defense. The document claimed that extremism is widespread among service members and proposed a new type called "Patriot Extremism."

(Shortform note: The presentation doesn’t define “Patriot Extremism,” but it’s likely a reference to people who use the language and symbols of American patriotism to justify anti-government or anti-constitutional violence. For example, the Oath Keepers militia group claims to defend the Constitution, but they’ve been involved in violent plots against the government. The term “Patriot Extremism” is controversial because it can be used to label people who are simply expressing their political views as extremists.)

Hegseth also claims the military is using formal mechanisms to control ideology in military academies. He says the academies are being pressured to change how they're educated in what's claimed to be hateful hallways. For instance, the academy is teaching cadets to avoid calling their parents "mom and dad" because it's divisive language. According to Hegseth, most cadets view the training negatively, finding it both divisive and detrimental to morale. However, the academy keeps amplifying the perspectives of cadets who support the training and wish to promote progressive ideology.

Diversity Training Can Strengthen the Military

In All That We Can Be, military sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler argue that the American armed forces became, in their words, “the most successfully integrated institution in American society” not by ignoring race and difference but by coupling strong equal-opportunity enforcement, proactive diversity initiatives, and education about fair treatment with an uncompromising focus on standards, discipline, and mission, thereby enhancing unit cohesion, trust, and overall military effectiveness rather than weakening it. They contend that such efforts, when properly implemented, actually strengthen military performance by fostering a more tightly knit, mutually respectful fighting force.

Actors and Incentives Driving Subversion

Hegseth argues that the armed forces are being used to advance political agendas rather than focusing on national defense.

(Shortform note: In The Soldier and the State, political scientist Samuel P. Huntington argues that the armed forces are not being used to advance political agendas. He contends that the military is a politically neutral institution focused on national defense.)

Manifestations of Decline and Erosion of Preparedness

Hegseth argues that gender integration in armed forces has resulted in decreased combat readiness. He cites a 2015 study by the US Marine Corps that found male-only units outperformed gender-integrated units 70% of the time. The male-only units were quicker and had greater accuracy with weapons, whereas mixed-gender units saw increased injury rates. However, the study additionally showed that gender-integrated units excelled in making complex decisions and had fewer disciplinary issues. Despite the higher injury rates among women, the study did not find a long-term decline in combat capability.

Gender Integration in Peacekeeping Operations

While Hegseth argues that gender integration in armed forces has resulted in decreased combat readiness, this may not be true in all contexts. In Equal Opportunity Peacekeeping, Sabrina Karim and Kyle Beardsley argue that gender integration in United Nations peacekeeping operations can enhance combat readiness. They explain that female peacekeepers are often better able to build trust with local communities, gain access to civilian groups that male soldiers cannot reach as easily, gather more complete information about security threats, and improve the perceived legitimacy and responsiveness of the mission.