Opinion | Hegseth is dangerous, but not for the reasons you think

To state the obvious: As a former “Fox & Friends” weekend host, National Guard officer and leader of two small nonprofits, Pete Hegseth is not qualified to lead a nuclear-armed organization with a budget approaching a trillion dollars. That’s the point. Donald Trump doesn’t want anyone effectively running the Pentagon; he wants to disrupt it.

His choice Mr. Hegsetha stems from the long-simmering right-wing discontent over the failure of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these frustrations are understandable, but the remedies Mr. Trump is proposing are dangerous. His contempt for international rules could destroy the laws of war that emerged from the devastation of two world wars. His threats of territorial expansion could intensify a period of nationalist aggression. His tirades against enemies within the United States hint at MAGA social engineering and domestic intervention by the Pentagon. In Mr. Hegseth he found a loyal vessel for this project, someone who could channel his mixture of chauvinism and rage to fundamentally change the character of the army.

Almost ten years ago, Mr. Trump announced his presidential campaign warning that the United States was in trouble. “We don’t have any more wins,” he said. “We had victories, but we don’t have them.” He emerged from a right-wing media ecosystem filled with bellicose nationalism and promises of major victories after the 9/11 attacks. George W. Bush committed the United States to the “ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” Even when the wars were going badly, Vice President Dick Cheney spoke of the Iraqi insurgency in its “last throes.” The people most conditioned to believe these promises were right-wing media consumers, which heightened their sense of betrayal when it became clear that they had been misled.

Mr. Hegseth has personally experienced war, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. After the initial defense of the post-Sept. 11 policy, he joined many on the right in trying to blame America’s failures abroad on enemies at home — the usual outcome when superpowers don’t win wars. Like Mr. Trump, focused on liberals and Islam, as well as changing demographics and social mores that have crept into the military through the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, diversity initiatives and women in combat.

Meanwhile, many veterans who served tours of difficult wars with unclear goals returned to communities struggling with deindustrialization and financial crisis and disoriented by social change. Social media carried the outrage and conspiracy theories, exposing the confidence of Bush-era triumphalism: We have no more victories.

Mr. Trump has tapped into this negative energy. He dismissed arguments about how the Iraq war could have been won, arguing, rightly, that it should never have been fought. If he criticized the conduct of the war, it was that we limited our troops by following the laws of war and did not take the oil. He believed that the United States was full of enemies who were contributing to its decline. As he became a dominant figure on the political right, media personalities, including Mr. Hegseth, reinforced these messages, simultaneously answering Mr. Trump, sharpening his criticism and shifting the discourse in directions once considered extreme.

During Mr. Trump’s first term, this worldview put him at odds with the generals he elevated to civilian roles, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Mr. Trump liked the idea of ​​a hard-nosed four-star general nicknamed Mad Dog leading the Pentagon, but as prominent retired military leaders increasingly issued warnings about Mr. Trump, in support of America’s commitments abroad, has linked conservative generals hired what he said is a self-serving “deep state” captured by “awakened” liberalism endangering the country.

It is clear that Mr. Trump is determined not to repeat that mistake. As reports appeared about the alleged heavy drinking of Mr. Hegseth, sexual assault and abuse of funds, Mr. Trump stepped up his support, and the MAGA media mobilized. This showed the extent to which Mr. Trump wants Pentagon loyalists and the loyalty of Senate Republicans. Allegations of sexual abuse and heavy drinking (which Mr Hegseth denied) also coincided with MAGA’s other interests, including being unencumbered by awakened social mores.

Mr. Hegseth caught the attention of Mr. Trump during his first term by advocating pardons for US soldiers accused or convicted of war crimes, including the killing of civilians. Mr. Hegseth condemned these prosecutions and criticized the corrosive mindset being pushed by “weak, America-hating ACLU types.”

This hostility to limits on American behavior overlaps with Mr. Trump’s recent foreign policy statements. His boasting about Greenland and Panama has the air of a declining superpower looking for someone smaller to intimidate. It’s not hard to imagine Pete Hegseth using the threat of military force to advance those ambitions. What kind of message would that send to Russia with plans for post-Soviet states, China claiming Taiwan, or Israel that might want to annex the West Bank? Impunity in waging and conducting war is attractive only to it is becoming the norm, as it was before the world wars that led the United States and other governments to write international laws to prevent the darkest history of mankind from repeating itself.

Mr Hegseth also lamented the presence of gay men in the military, women in combat and “diverse employees” in senior positions, including the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He used apocalyptic imagery about Marxism while insisting on the “categorical defeat of the left” within the United States. What kind of army results from this worldview? Probably one that seeks to reverse the social and cultural changes of recent decades within its ranks, undermining cohesion and devaluing diversity as a source of strength. MAG Army.

Loyalty to Donald Trump is key to this project. Mr. Trump complained about the military ignoring his will for the first time. No one expects Mr. Hegseth to do that, nor would the kind of army he was talking about. What happens if she is asked to support the president’s political interests? Or participate in mass deportations? Or suppress political protests? The United States would struggle to return to an apolitical military that would serve a constitutional citizenry, not an individual or an ideology.

To be clear, it will not be easy for Mr. Trump to achieve these goals within four years. There are laws, traditions, and competing interests that govern the work of large institutions like the Pentagon. Few people understand this better than Mr. Trump. It may not be a coincidence that he chose two extreme loyalists to lead the institutions responsible for the most basic powers of the state: law enforcement and military power. A simple confirmation for Mr. Hegseth would signal Senate approval for the new president to reshape the government, although the bigger test will be whether Secretary Hegseth can reshape the military in MAGA’s image.

In three consecutive elections against Mr. Trump, Democrats have struggled to find a counter-narrative to his complaints about the post-9/11 wars. Instead, they have reflexively defended institutions and sided with a hawkish foreign policy that is out of step with voters. Kamala Harris even welcomed Dick Cheney’s support.

Instead of seeking validation from hawkish elites, Democrats need a foreign policy that speaks to their constituents’ post-9 grievances. 11 policies: one that reduces the risks of war, emphasizes the dangers of independent adventurism, positions the United States as a leader in sectors such as technology and clean energy, and earns the respect of the world. Instead of reflexively defending the Pentagon, they should focus on cutting the bloated budget — including cutting nuclear weapons modernization that could approach $2 trillion and fuel an arms race.

As for personnel, instead of accepting the culture-war framework, they may argue that recruiting and the health of the force are being disserviced by diminishing the role of women, gays, or minorities. Finally, they should strongly oppose the politicized use of the military within the United States as a dangerous Rubicon that an institution most Americans revere should not cross.

Of course, it is possible that other appointments of Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Trump, who attract attention only as a distraction and that Mr. Trump to rule as a more conventional conservative (albeit with a more corrupt goal). But it would be a mistake to discount the possibility of our military’s transformation, just as it would be a mistake to underestimate the depth of resentment that led to this.

“I am your revenge,” Mr. Trump declared at the start of his latest presidential campaign. Retribution for, among other things, the sense of defeatism and devaluation on the American right after 9/11. Overcoming this dynamic will require political leaders to find ways for America to win without defeating itself.

Ben Rhodes is a former deputy national security adviser and the author, most recently, of After the Fall: The Rise of Authoritarianism in the World We Made.

The Times is committed to publishing variety of letters to the editor. We would like to hear what you think about this or one of our articles. Here are some tips. And here is our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow the New York Times Opinion section at Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and neither.