If we needed any proof that Major Major Major has no clue about being an officer and has been promoted well beyond any trivial evidence of competence — much like the origin of that name — it was clearly demonstrated with the graduation speech given at West Point.
“The battlefield does not grade on a curve, and you can’t throw your pronouns at the enemy,” Hegseth told the cadets. “Combat is the ultimate test, and our best Americans must ace it.”
• • •
“West Point is set apart. It’s special. It’s above politics,” he continued. “Success here is based on merit. It’s how you perform that matters.”
This pretty definitively demonstrates that the Secretary of Law of Armed Conflict Violations Defense has no clue about what being a military officer requires.1
To begin with, military leadership is entirely about throwing pronouns at the enemy:
We. Us. Our.
For all the acclaim for individual heroism (mis/over)stated damned near everywhere, military success is now — and, throughout the gunpowder-and-later era, always has been — about the collective. That's the entire bloody point of "boot camp." That's the historical basis for "military academies," where this ignoramus was spewing forth venom. Those collective pronouns are the only ones that matter; they're embedded in the entire bloody curriculum, and they should be. Indeed, they're actually the foundation for all of that "heroism," and the holiday we're celebrating tomorrow. Every Medal of Honor citation rightly emphasizes the choice of that collective pronoun over any variation on an individual pronoun, or even the existence of a personal interest that might conceivably be expressed in a pronoun. Those are the real "identity politics" that are at issue for all military officers, and most especially for those O–1s to O–3s (lieutenants and captains/ensigns and lieutenants) most responsible for building "unit cohesion"… and substitution of the collective pronouns for individual ones. One does not forge a flexible, adaptable, efficient, and above all competent collective from individuals without respecting those individuals.
If West Point was truly "above politics" (and similarly for the other academies), it wouldn't be based in political favor… like, say, the fundamental admission requirement of political approval for 17- and 18-year-olds. More to the point, though, it isn't — and can't — be only individual merit that matters. Perhaps the best indication of this is a simple one, linking right back into tomorrow's holiday: Living recipients of the Medal of Honor — who have, if anyone has, demonstrated "military merit" — don't become service Chiefs of Staff (or, for the Navy, Chiefs of Naval Operations). They don't even attain flag rank, or the top enlisted grades.3
Maybe Major Major Major is (marginally) qualified to wear a fake mustache and avoid actually engaging with anyone for whom that office has leadership responsibilities.4 That does not equate to being qualified to expound on principles of military leadership — not even by virtue of the office. Neither does it concern expounding on the relationship of linguistics and social dynamics to leadership requirements in a military drawn from the entirety of a nation of over 300 million — not even if by adding a new career track for ensuring right-thinking among the officers corps. But then, the политический руководитель/représentant en mission/Nationalsozialistische Führungsoffiziere is perhaps less innovative, or effective, than those who have ardently avoided learning about military history (even recent military history) might think… let alone learning about either military doctrine or actual leadership.
That wasn't a speech about, or to, the cadets. And, as such, it's an abuse of the cadets and a dereliction of duty (by an individual not subject to Article 92… or Article 133). If anyone has demonstrated that they're sly, cunning, and bears considerable watching — without much sign of intelligence — it's this… individual, who would far rather have adjectives of intolerance applied to themself than any pronoun whatsoever.
- Unlike an awful lot of armchair generals — and armchair pundits, journalists, ideologues, politicians — I have substantial personal experience. The silence on these issues coming from the officer community, especially from those with command and critical midlevel staff experience, isn't precisely deafening; it's merely definitive.
- We'll leave for another time exactly whom Memorial Day was originally intended to honor. It's not just that that disrespects every other conflict, but that it's a great example of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of "original public meaning" as binding on later, noncomparable circumstances. This is exemplified by the later extension to a larger conception of "us" to include "the ones who came back."
- Admittedly, an awful lot of Medal of Honor recipients — nominees, even — are either deceased or grievously wounded preventing later service. It's the complete absence among those who remain eligible for such promotions that matters here, not a comparative statistical study. <SARCASM> Unless, that is, individual heroism is not the only measure of merit; that there is diversity of measures, and even an admission that measuring now and from the past is — as the SEC has required investment advisors to acknowledge for decades — an inadequate predictor of the future (even if it's the only basis available). </SARCASM>
- In an ironic counterpoint, this Major Major Major spends all of his time apparently in public and preparing for public appearances, rather unlike his namesake. Indeed, he's rather more like Yossarian; I make no accusations or judgments regarding signatures on paperwork.