Back in the dark ages of the 1970’s the Marine Corps was faced with the challenges of recovering from the Vietnam War. Two roads, continue as is, with enormous drug, race, and other social problems OR, return to our roots. What we now call the warrior ethos. The savior was a tall steel blue eyed soft spoken man from Oxford Mississippi, General Louis Hugh Wilson. Among many distinctions, he had been awarded our nations highest award for valor in combat. The Medal of Honor. He became the 26th Commandant of the Marine Corps in July of 1975, it was a job he really didn’t want for a myriad of reasons at the time. His brief speech at Marine Barracks 8th and I upon becoming CMC was as follows: “I call on all Marines to get in step and do so smartly!” That was it. No flowerly words just that admonition. He knew that fat lazy Marines could not and would not be tolerated “If I see a fat Marine he is in trouble, with me, but so is his commanding officer.” This writer could go on and on about what ole “chilly Willy” did to save the Corps, but he brought back our ethos, our discipline and Je reinvigorated and strengthened the Marine Air Ground Task Force so it would be READY. Of late say the last several years many senior Marine Corps flag officers have lost their will to face reality and face a Congress and American public and tell them the truth. We are no longer ready. Secretary of War Hegseth has reinvigorated the warrior spirit. One can hope that he starts “retiring” flag officers that refuse to “get in step and do so smartly.” Most Marines join because they want to be challenged and they want to be part of something bigger than themselves. They want to be pushed whether infantry, motor transport, wing units whatever. Our leadership writ large has let them down. So, what will it be America? A bunch of cry baby, baby boomers who dodged the draft in the ‘60’s who now rearmed with shiny walkers, freshly laundered tie dyed T shirts and open toed Birkenstocks fueled by powerful cannabis gummies and blood thinners with “resist” signs, or a return to a sense of larger higher purpose. It has to start somewhere and the SecWar laid it out plain as day. The more you sweat in peace time the less you bleed in war. This writer would accept orders back to the 2nd MarDiv today if it meant he could be part of returning our ethos to the young Marines so deserving of the “special trust and confidence” bestowed upon him by his nation; giving example to any and all that leadship and ethos are a way of living, it is what we do. Ya wanna talk the talk?!? Well then little campers walk the walk. Now Sam hand me that walking stick, my back is cranky this morning but there is work to be done!
This is epic, Charles. Chilly Willy sounds hardcore, a true warrior, a true Sam Damon who fortunately made it to command. The funny thing is what you're laying out here is exactly what so many young men need to gain of purpose again—they want it to be a warrior profession once they get a taste of it. The pendulum is swinging. I just hope the senior leadership will get on board.
Sam, there are some striking similarities between the current state of affairs in our military and that of the mid 1970’s. The professional class of McNamara’s paper pushers, and a complicit senior leadership, Westmoreland and Zumwalt as example, had left the military a shambles. General Wilson’s predecessor General Cushman AKA Nixon’s bag man (literally) had said, give me the man and I will make him a Marine. It was a disaster especially as we entered the AVF phase of recruiting. General Wilson and General Barrow went the other way, we will only take those that have what it takes to complete recruit training or OCS. (The wash out rate when I went through OCS was big, but the word was out to get rid of those that can’t hack it) General Wilson was a truth teller, and had no governor on his brain and engine. He came to Camp LeJeune right before he was retiring, sort of a farewell tour. We packed the Goettge Field House, there were lot of Marines in one place, and General Wilson came into the center of the building and spoke for a bit. Then said, well now I want to hear from you all, let’s have some questions. Anyone over the rank of E4 sucked in their breath. Oh noooo, does he realize what could go wrong here??? Yes he did, and he was in complete control…First question…a Marine stands up and complains into the microphone that his pros and cons are sufficient to be promoted. (Lance Corporal to Corporal? Can’t recall perfectly) Ole Chilly Willy says “Marine if what you say is so, as of this minute you a damn Corporal…but if what you say isn’t so, you’re going to the brig!!” The place exploded! Everyone cheering for the CMC and the dumb ass who had the balls to stand up and bring it. General Wilson, playing to the crowd had a sly grin on his face and and said “next question.” Then took on a lot of questions and had solid answers for all of them. He was undaunted and I think he loved the ability as he was exiting to retirement, to speak directly to his Marines. We have had the same moment with the SecWar. He didn’t take questions, but I would guess all those flags in the room know where his office is, and if they don’t like the talk can walk their papers personally up to his office and face the man. I sure hope we can kick out all these faux flags and get the warriors into the right positions, they are in the system, we just need to get them promoted so that they can flourish and get us back on an even keel. As always Sam, your posts are great to get and always either thought provoking or memory stirring. Or both!
Adult rules are back. You're absolutely right—if they have problems, they can deal with it face to face as opposed to slipping their complaints to the media. But I think the people and the combat arms of the military are behind Hegseth. It will be interesting to watch this develop. Thank you Charles.
I agree with you. There is another aspect of this reorienting of our military's focus that I have yet to see anyone address.
It is clear that there are many people who hate America. There are not just here in the US, but overseas. They have told me to my face.
There are a lot of people around the world who love America. They also have told me this to my face.
Here in the US we call those love America, Patriots. They love their country. Many of them has served in the military.
My concern is how we understand patriotism and love of country, especially when applied to the military. Essentially, we ask our warfighters to kill the enemy as an act of love. There is a huge psychological problem with this mindset.
I did not serve in the military. My ancestors did. They did not serve out of love of country, but out of duty and honor.
Of course, these are old values that today only find their continued belief in the military services.
What is odd about this framework of service is that it challenges both those who love America and those who hate America. In effect, we live in a time of sentimentalization. We feel love or we feel hate, and that is how we define ourselves.
I hope the outcome of Sec. Hegseth's mission is the creation of a culture that will attract people to military service who find duty, honor, and service appealing. If so, then I also expect to see this motivation to expand into other sectors of our society.
I need to think about this paradox. It is compelling. My sense is Hegseth is on the exact path you outlined in your last paragraph, though he is adding a twist to it. I appreciate the comment Ed, I will chew on this.
The entertainment industry produces violent programs that demonstrate a love of killing. My realization came as I saw that we promote war as a good thing. From my perspective, it represents a failure of leadership character. And I go back to the Civil War to see this fascination with war as a leadership strategy. I am not a pacifist. I honor those who serve.
The contrast of the North Koreans and the Americans forgets two things,
Firstly, America was not the sole opponent to North Korea. There were too 56,000 British, 18,000 Australians, 5,000 Dutch, and so on. During any conflict, the US begs every other country to help, and then during and after the conflict, pretends those countries never existed. We are used to US ingratitude, but I expect better of you.
Secondly, the North Koreans were defeated until supported by vastly larger numbers of Chinese.
This latter follows a pattern in history: whoever commits the most atrocities and is most indifferent to the lives of civilians - the "warriors" as described by Hegseth - tends to lose. The ones who behave decently tend to win. This is why the IDF regularly defeats Arab armies, why the Serbs lost their Yugoslav wars, why the Rwandans perpetrating the massacres were chased out, and so on. Scum lose, and rightly so.
As an example, during the Falklands War the British came up to an assault on Port Stanley, and had only roughly equal numbers against an elevated dug-in position. The Argentines surrendered. Seeing their conduct in the rest of the campaign we know this was not cowardice. Instead, they knew that defeat was inevitable, but more importantly they knew that they would be taken off to captivity with hot food and baths. Had they expected torture or being shot into a ditch, there would have been a very different outcome - the Argentines would still have eventually lost, but there would have been a vastly greater cost in British lives. Thus, respecting the laws of war is a war-winning strategy.
Further, as I was told on recruit course, "you do not fight a war as though there is never going to be a peace." Consider the behaviour of the Wehrmacht with Allied soldiers compared to Soviet soldiers. And consider the relations of Germany with France, Britain etc in the 80 years since compared to their relations with Russia. Decent behaviour by the Germans with the Allies allowed friendship after the war, whereas the atrocities committed by German and Russian against each-other left lasting bitterness that affects diplomacy to this day.
As for physical fitness, Hegseth shows an abysmal ignorance of history, in this as in other things. The US is regularly defeated by scrawny guys in pyjamas. Many of them bearded, in fact. As much as Hegseth may be a closet homosexual worshipping big, strong muscular men, these are not inevitably the most effective soldiers. Hegseth wouldn't have liked Audie Murphy, the WWII SAS or the like, but they were pretty effective soldiers.
A warrior acts alone, and ignores all laws and decency. A soldier acts in a team and follows orders, including the laws of war. Warriors kill the enemy, and are then killed. Soldiers defeat the enemy, and go home to their families. Hegseth is merely rationalising his part in his country being defeated in its recent conflicts. He has watched too much 300 in between drinking and abusing women.
I'll try to address some of your points. Though this issue may be impossible to settle because it is now ingrained in politics.
I am aware America was not alone in fighting the North Koreans and Chinese. But in a 1,400 word essay, it is simply not possible to address every caveat and nuance. Otherwise I would have copied and pasted Fehrenbach's excellent book here, and even he did not have the space to write about non-US militaries at length. Hegseth's mission is for America, not the world, so I delimited my subject.
I am genuinely curious, where did Hegseth say a warrior is "whoever commits the most atrocities and is most indifferent to the lives of civilians"? I would change my view of his mission in an instant if that is what he said, for I have no interest in massacring civilians. And I am also unsure if his intent with physical fitness is that our fighters need to be yoked. His intent seems to be ensuring no one is overweight so that a fighter is mobile and effective in combat, no more.
The beard issue is amusing and there is much talk about it for some reason. He has a good deal of respect for SOF, hence his admonition if you want a beard, join SOF. I imagine he would have admired the SAS as much as I do.
I have a different take on your warrior and soldier dichotomy. A soldier obeys orders no matter what the orders are. I picture the soldier at Auschwitz dropping Zyklon B into a shower hatch because he was ordered to. A warrior obeys a higher ideal that may never be broken, no matter the orders.
Hegseth has been consistent in defending accused and convicted war criminals, and in saying the US needs looser RoE. We both know that "looser RoE" is another way of saying "do whatever we want" in the same way that someone saying "those people" is racist. They're just too chickenshit to be blatant. But we know what they mean.
Hegseth's claim is that having a beard is a sign of ill-discipline. If that is the case, then should the top soldiers not also be clean-shaven? He's saying the rules should not apply to SF. Consider how across the Anglosphere, SF has been more likely to be involved in war crimes. And put this together with his defence of war criminals and wanting looser RoE, and with his President pardoning war criminals - at his request, and that was when he was a news host, let alone SecDef. In other words, he wants SF to be able to behave with reckless impunity.
A warrior obeys his own ideals. A soldier obeys orders. But a soldier obeys all lawful orders. Every German soldier's paybook contained "10 commandments", which included,
"No enemy who surrenders shall be killed [...] Prisoners shall not be mistreated or offended [...] Civilians are unassailable."
Nor was any German soldier ever killed as a result of refusing to obey orders to kill civilians or prisoners of war, nor imprisoned, they were just transferred. And after the Battle of Kursk, it was ordered that any German soldier who wanted to go to the eastern front could not be prevented. So the German soldier who dropped Zyklon B down the shaft was neither a warrior nor a soldier, as he was disobeying orders, and was a coward avoiding combat. A genuine soldier would have refused, and then volunteered to go fight the enemies of his country, and treat the enemy honourably.
This is the usual way with men who committ war crimes, and crimes against humanity. They use "warrior ethos" and "orders" to justify their crimes and cowardice.
This article digs into Hegseth's psyche. His dislike of women and black people is obvious. But then, those Aryan types were always pretty gay. His undermining of the VA should be enough to make any veteran or family member of a veteran scorn him, whatever else he's into.
Rock on Baird. The posse comitatus exists for a good reason. It looks like America is about to have to remember why it was invented, and not for the first time.
Sam’s today’s essay is very appropriate on the anniversary of October 7, 2023 massacre of Israelis. Although the IDF has the warrior ethos, some parts “fell asleep at the wheel” and the price to recover is monumental. It seems that easy times produce again complacency and we see the results. The IDF needs to also change its name to IWF.
I spent my first five years in the Marine Corps with the Second Marine Division, serving in both Artillery and Infantry battalions, so much of what Secretary Hegseth said resonated with me. The emphasis on restoring a warrior ethos and serious combat readiness was on target and necessary for the force as a whole. However, combat readiness includes far more than combat skills and physical fitness. Think aircraft, ship, ordinance, and vehicle maintainer expertise. Think the logistics tail to keep it all running and on and on and on...
That said, my overall impression was that this was a political speech more than a strategic one. While much of the rhetoric struck a chord with combat arms veterans, it also sounded like it came from the perspective of a junior officer.... motivated, idealistic, and deeply loyal, but perhaps lacking the broader institutional maturity expected of a senior leader. I couldn't help but feel that parts of the speech demanded loyalty to something other than to the Constitution, and that should give us pause.
If Secretary Hegseth truly believes the military has returned to being a meritocracy, he may want to reflect on his own role in restoring it. Leaders must speak hard truths and know when to step aside, as he asked the Admirals and Generals in the audience to do if they did not embrace his vision. If he meant what he said about preparing warriors for war, perhaps his final act of service should be to hand the reins to someone more capable of leading the Department through the complex threats of the future.
If he truly believes in building a force defined by discipline, readiness, and integrity, perhaps stepping aside is the final act of leadership that reinforces the very ethos he champions.
David, I appreciate your thoughts, and I can also see the merits of your argument.
My sense is Hegseth's speech struck the combat troops most intensely as you mentioned not only because they want to more capably fulfill their function in war, but also because they witnessed first hand what more "senior leaders" did in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was quite similar to the Korean War in that our purpose there was neither an absolute victory nor simply going home—it was to remain indefinitely in a war zone with hands tied behind backs. All the while men were dismembered and killed. Many of these combat veterans believe a major cause of this travesty was senior leadership was not willing to ruffle political feathers. In other words they cared more for their careers than the mutilated soldiers beneath them.
It may be that Hegseth's youth, inexperience, and passion are what is needed to right the ship, assuming he does not make the mistake of going too far the other direction, which you alluded to. If he veers off course of the Constitution, if he places loyalty to a man over loyalty to the country, or if he goes the way of the senior leaders he opposes and cares more for his future hireabliitiy than his current vision, then he will fail miserably. Time will tell.
Every man and woman that joins the military must be ready to give his or her life and, conversely, devotes himself or herself to the study and practice of warfighting. There are exceptions, but by-and-large, that means each person in the military must be postured to take the life of a person within the bounds of just war.
For that reason, Secretary Hegseth's push to re-embrace warrior ethos at the institutional level is not an unwelcome shock. Same for the case you make in this essay. Still, I have questions about what this really means. In a word--what is the exemplar in this warrior ethos?
Many of us (myself included) who have sworn the oath of enlistment are not "warriors" in the traditional sense of that word. There are infantry and special operations MOSs, but for every one of them, there are dozens of support MOSs or other office-bound positions. Should it be the case that each of us embraces the Spartan exemplar and excuses ourselves from polite society because we are killers of a higher order? I mean all of this as a genuine question, not a snarky complaint. In particular ways, and toward what, do we who are willing to fight yet are confined to areas other than combat, strive? Who or what is the exemplar for data analysts, personnel-ists, crew chiefs, medics, divers, intelligence analysts, or cyber operators?
It's a deep and thoughtful question. I admit I do not have the answer, as my tenure in the military was in a small combat focused unit.
But from experience overseas in the tribal lands, the small Army unit which included non-combat roles ended up facing quite a bit of combat. Korea is another example. When the front line troops were decimated in the early days because they were not prepared for war, those who worked behind desks found themselves with a rifle rucking up mountains storming machine gun nests. I think the deeper point is that the military exists for one reason: to win war. And wars are not restricted to a trench on a mountain. It can come down to the plains. It can come to American shores. And when it does, neither support MOSs nor office bound positions nor civilians for that matter will be able to debate this question. The answer will be crystal clear.
That is the worst case scenario, but history proves it is in fact the normal scenario. We can turn to nearly every nation that has existed up until the mid-20th century.
I am not saying we all need face paint and mohawks. But my sense is the military needs to remain focused and prepared for the worst.
The military has wanned over the years I've been watching. I see it working next to service members today. It certainly is a kinder/gentler Army writ large and you can see that in the GO ranks today. They're politicians, not warriors and that flows downhill very fast to the savvy careerist. Hence why I got out after only 6 years.
I know exactly what you mean. If you haven't read Fehrenbachs book I referenced here, I highly recommend it. This is merely a cycle—it went through a far worse cycle after WWII which is why we got massacred repeatedly in the beginning of Korea. He very eloquently explores the many reasons why.
Early 80s Army was a cluster as well right after Vietnam. It happens, it can be corrected. People are just so wadded up about Trump they can’t get past themselves.
Yes, it came from the book I referenced, This Kind of War: The Classic Korean War History by Fehrenbach. I couldn’t recommend the book more, it is fantastic.
Sam- I've mentioned it before, but this essay reminded me again of John McPhee's book about the Swiss Army. I do not know what the modern situation is, but they seem to have a somewhat cohesive path that values democracy as well as military reality.
In principle I believe in righteous and just wars. Carthago delanda est. We're not far apart in theory, we just disagree on the cases in question.
But the concrete question remains: is that what we've been doing? Are we policing evil? Saddam was no doubt evil, but that wasn't the justification used for the invasion. I'd speculate that neither the evil of him and his sons nor WMDs were the actual reason for the invasion; I suspect it probably had more to do with Iraq entertaining a return to the gold standard, similar to Gaddafi/Libya.
There's a case to be made that protecting the dollar as a reserve currency is protecting America -- but that case should be made if that's the objective. Just be honest about what we're doing and why, and men will be on board or they won't. If we really wanted to banish darkness from the world, why don't we liberate England and Western Europe from the evil savages raping their women on masse? I have no doubt the Taliban and ISIS are evil; shit, Islam itself is, historically speaking, a continuation of Hu'Baal worship. I and many others think literal crusades would be justified.
But that's not what the people running the show have used the military for, at least not primarily or as a primary objective. If it was, recruitment wouldn't be an issue; but while cartels are flooding America with deadly drugs and violent criminals and there's an entire religion with an ethos of destroying Western Christian nations, why is the emphasis on preparing for war with Russia or China? Is it about fighting evil or are there ulterior motives being masked?
Even the recruiting pool is pussified; it's no longer a matter of turning men into warriors, but starting with what is borderline hopeless and hoping for the best.
Kids don't have dodgeball in gym class, let alone archery and rifle or pellet gun ranges like some of our parents and grandparents. Schoolyard fights are either heavily policed and punished or a pack of animals jumping a nerd.
There's a lack of tenacity in modern American culture. Even in boxing/kickboxing gyms, I'd say close to half of people either aren't keen on sparring after classes or don't respond well to pressure in the ring. When in a corner they'll shell up for several seconds without returning fire. They might respond when a trainer yells at them to do something, but their instinct is to shell up and quit instead of fight their way out of a bad spot.
But the flip side of the coin -- even if the lack of tenacity and training are addressed -- is whose war is it anyway? Guys train to fight knowing they may one day have to and want to win, but that doesn't mean any opportunity to fight is as good as any other. If full-on war with Russia or Iran broke out, what are the odds that it would actually be *our* war? What did Russia or Iran ever do to me or America? Who would I really be serving in going to Ukraine to fight? Russia hasn't fought many offensive wars in its history and the last time they made it to Paris to deal with Napoleon, they promptly turned around and went back home. Would invading Iran, perhaps the most naturally defensible position in the world and thousands of miles away, serve American interests or Israeli? What has Israel done for us?
I was still teaching whenever Russia's SMO began, and I remember students being outraged about Putin. I asked them, "If we decided to send the military into Mexico to deal with the drug cartels and human trafficking -- issues that have been a major detriment to our nation -- and Putin was all upset about us doing so, what would our response to him be? We'd say, "Fuck off, we're dealing with an issue on our border affecting our people and it has nothing to do with you or your people thousands of miles away."
Fights will come to us, we need not look for them or allow ourselves to be coaxed into fighting others' battles for them. Whose war is it? What are we fighting for? To whose benefit? Does it benefit us or America? We all know Jodi isn't fighting, but if we're off fighting leaving him as the only one to do the fucking, is that benefiting us or America? If the war we're fighting isn't benefitting us or America either, we end up losing and hurting ourselves and our nation on every front. And when a necessary fight arrives at our door we've expended our people and resources fighting for someone else thousands of miles away.
On your first point, I agree. We have a lot of ground to cover.
On the second, I have a different view of it. I believe we should have gone to Vietnam. I believe we should have gone to Korea. I believe in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And if there are young Americans who want to wage war for Ukraine, I believe we should support them. Because if America and the West do not police the world, the world will be a far darker place. And instead of the war happening outside our borders, it will be brought to our borders. My key caveat is participation in a war should never be forced. I disagree with a draft in any form, for if people do not want to fight in the war, the war probably should not be fought. And if it should be fought and people still do not want to wage it, then natural selection will occur.
So my late father was in the Royal Navy as a stoker. He left after he watched one rating stab another. He asked himself “why did that bloke do that?” And then he trained and worked as a probation officer for 30 years. I asked him if I should join the armed forces. And he said: “No, it’s just blokes shouting at you. And engine oil burns.”
Anyway, enough of my stories. Pete Hegseth believes in lots of pull-ups and he doesn’t like gay people. As we have seen in Ukraine, we are entering a world where mass-produced, cheap drones and mobile phones make the kill zone more complex and unpredictable than ever before. We need smart people with diverse experiences. I think pull-ups and not liking gay people will only get you so far. But what do I know.
It is certainly an interesting thought. I have seen plenty of footage from Ukraine of muddy trench fighting and the need for strength and courage to save men and civilians under fire—that aspect of war will never go away no matter how drones there are. And if we play drone warfare out, I don't see either the winner or loser ending the war once their drones run out. Flesh will come next.
“War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”
―J.R.R. Tolkien,The Two Towers
Sam, Your clarity of thought is an icy breeze that parts the mist. Thanks for another thoughtful essay.
I was floored by his book. He also was not shy about his love of Marines. Of all the troops on the ground in the early days of the war, he made it clear the Marines still lived according to the old laws even after WWII. They fought like warriors from day one.
I'm not following your logic. That is not my conclusion. I recommend a warrior ethos in addition to hard training. Fehrenbach made it clear not only was MacArthur arrogant and the "war" poorly conceived, but the lower enlisted were terribly trained both physically and psychologically for warfare. There is only so much that can be covered in a short form essay and I chose the latter.
Thanks for the reply, Sam. And I appreciate your perspective! Yes, my comment may be cryptic. The short form is challenging to convey the whole layout of one's logic. I was attempting to explain that if the US fought a war that was truly in its national interest, then its culture and fighting spirit would rise to the occasion.
I appreciate the clarity. I have to assume you're right, assuming it is irrefutably in our national interest. But given the last decade or so, unless the value is 100% clear, it's possible neither the culture nor the fighting spirit would rise. It's just a hunch. And if it does arise, we need to make sure we're physically and mentally ready to crush it for the good of us all.
Back in the dark ages of the 1970’s the Marine Corps was faced with the challenges of recovering from the Vietnam War. Two roads, continue as is, with enormous drug, race, and other social problems OR, return to our roots. What we now call the warrior ethos. The savior was a tall steel blue eyed soft spoken man from Oxford Mississippi, General Louis Hugh Wilson. Among many distinctions, he had been awarded our nations highest award for valor in combat. The Medal of Honor. He became the 26th Commandant of the Marine Corps in July of 1975, it was a job he really didn’t want for a myriad of reasons at the time. His brief speech at Marine Barracks 8th and I upon becoming CMC was as follows: “I call on all Marines to get in step and do so smartly!” That was it. No flowerly words just that admonition. He knew that fat lazy Marines could not and would not be tolerated “If I see a fat Marine he is in trouble, with me, but so is his commanding officer.” This writer could go on and on about what ole “chilly Willy” did to save the Corps, but he brought back our ethos, our discipline and Je reinvigorated and strengthened the Marine Air Ground Task Force so it would be READY. Of late say the last several years many senior Marine Corps flag officers have lost their will to face reality and face a Congress and American public and tell them the truth. We are no longer ready. Secretary of War Hegseth has reinvigorated the warrior spirit. One can hope that he starts “retiring” flag officers that refuse to “get in step and do so smartly.” Most Marines join because they want to be challenged and they want to be part of something bigger than themselves. They want to be pushed whether infantry, motor transport, wing units whatever. Our leadership writ large has let them down. So, what will it be America? A bunch of cry baby, baby boomers who dodged the draft in the ‘60’s who now rearmed with shiny walkers, freshly laundered tie dyed T shirts and open toed Birkenstocks fueled by powerful cannabis gummies and blood thinners with “resist” signs, or a return to a sense of larger higher purpose. It has to start somewhere and the SecWar laid it out plain as day. The more you sweat in peace time the less you bleed in war. This writer would accept orders back to the 2nd MarDiv today if it meant he could be part of returning our ethos to the young Marines so deserving of the “special trust and confidence” bestowed upon him by his nation; giving example to any and all that leadship and ethos are a way of living, it is what we do. Ya wanna talk the talk?!? Well then little campers walk the walk. Now Sam hand me that walking stick, my back is cranky this morning but there is work to be done!
This is epic, Charles. Chilly Willy sounds hardcore, a true warrior, a true Sam Damon who fortunately made it to command. The funny thing is what you're laying out here is exactly what so many young men need to gain of purpose again—they want it to be a warrior profession once they get a taste of it. The pendulum is swinging. I just hope the senior leadership will get on board.
Sam, there are some striking similarities between the current state of affairs in our military and that of the mid 1970’s. The professional class of McNamara’s paper pushers, and a complicit senior leadership, Westmoreland and Zumwalt as example, had left the military a shambles. General Wilson’s predecessor General Cushman AKA Nixon’s bag man (literally) had said, give me the man and I will make him a Marine. It was a disaster especially as we entered the AVF phase of recruiting. General Wilson and General Barrow went the other way, we will only take those that have what it takes to complete recruit training or OCS. (The wash out rate when I went through OCS was big, but the word was out to get rid of those that can’t hack it) General Wilson was a truth teller, and had no governor on his brain and engine. He came to Camp LeJeune right before he was retiring, sort of a farewell tour. We packed the Goettge Field House, there were lot of Marines in one place, and General Wilson came into the center of the building and spoke for a bit. Then said, well now I want to hear from you all, let’s have some questions. Anyone over the rank of E4 sucked in their breath. Oh noooo, does he realize what could go wrong here??? Yes he did, and he was in complete control…First question…a Marine stands up and complains into the microphone that his pros and cons are sufficient to be promoted. (Lance Corporal to Corporal? Can’t recall perfectly) Ole Chilly Willy says “Marine if what you say is so, as of this minute you a damn Corporal…but if what you say isn’t so, you’re going to the brig!!” The place exploded! Everyone cheering for the CMC and the dumb ass who had the balls to stand up and bring it. General Wilson, playing to the crowd had a sly grin on his face and and said “next question.” Then took on a lot of questions and had solid answers for all of them. He was undaunted and I think he loved the ability as he was exiting to retirement, to speak directly to his Marines. We have had the same moment with the SecWar. He didn’t take questions, but I would guess all those flags in the room know where his office is, and if they don’t like the talk can walk their papers personally up to his office and face the man. I sure hope we can kick out all these faux flags and get the warriors into the right positions, they are in the system, we just need to get them promoted so that they can flourish and get us back on an even keel. As always Sam, your posts are great to get and always either thought provoking or memory stirring. Or both!
Adult rules are back. You're absolutely right—if they have problems, they can deal with it face to face as opposed to slipping their complaints to the media. But I think the people and the combat arms of the military are behind Hegseth. It will be interesting to watch this develop. Thank you Charles.
I agree with you. There is another aspect of this reorienting of our military's focus that I have yet to see anyone address.
It is clear that there are many people who hate America. There are not just here in the US, but overseas. They have told me to my face.
There are a lot of people around the world who love America. They also have told me this to my face.
Here in the US we call those love America, Patriots. They love their country. Many of them has served in the military.
My concern is how we understand patriotism and love of country, especially when applied to the military. Essentially, we ask our warfighters to kill the enemy as an act of love. There is a huge psychological problem with this mindset.
I did not serve in the military. My ancestors did. They did not serve out of love of country, but out of duty and honor.
Of course, these are old values that today only find their continued belief in the military services.
What is odd about this framework of service is that it challenges both those who love America and those who hate America. In effect, we live in a time of sentimentalization. We feel love or we feel hate, and that is how we define ourselves.
I hope the outcome of Sec. Hegseth's mission is the creation of a culture that will attract people to military service who find duty, honor, and service appealing. If so, then I also expect to see this motivation to expand into other sectors of our society.
I need to think about this paradox. It is compelling. My sense is Hegseth is on the exact path you outlined in your last paragraph, though he is adding a twist to it. I appreciate the comment Ed, I will chew on this.
Let's look at this picture a different way.
The entertainment industry produces violent programs that demonstrate a love of killing. My realization came as I saw that we promote war as a good thing. From my perspective, it represents a failure of leadership character. And I go back to the Civil War to see this fascination with war as a leadership strategy. I am not a pacifist. I honor those who serve.
The contrast of the North Koreans and the Americans forgets two things,
Firstly, America was not the sole opponent to North Korea. There were too 56,000 British, 18,000 Australians, 5,000 Dutch, and so on. During any conflict, the US begs every other country to help, and then during and after the conflict, pretends those countries never existed. We are used to US ingratitude, but I expect better of you.
Secondly, the North Koreans were defeated until supported by vastly larger numbers of Chinese.
This latter follows a pattern in history: whoever commits the most atrocities and is most indifferent to the lives of civilians - the "warriors" as described by Hegseth - tends to lose. The ones who behave decently tend to win. This is why the IDF regularly defeats Arab armies, why the Serbs lost their Yugoslav wars, why the Rwandans perpetrating the massacres were chased out, and so on. Scum lose, and rightly so.
As an example, during the Falklands War the British came up to an assault on Port Stanley, and had only roughly equal numbers against an elevated dug-in position. The Argentines surrendered. Seeing their conduct in the rest of the campaign we know this was not cowardice. Instead, they knew that defeat was inevitable, but more importantly they knew that they would be taken off to captivity with hot food and baths. Had they expected torture or being shot into a ditch, there would have been a very different outcome - the Argentines would still have eventually lost, but there would have been a vastly greater cost in British lives. Thus, respecting the laws of war is a war-winning strategy.
Further, as I was told on recruit course, "you do not fight a war as though there is never going to be a peace." Consider the behaviour of the Wehrmacht with Allied soldiers compared to Soviet soldiers. And consider the relations of Germany with France, Britain etc in the 80 years since compared to their relations with Russia. Decent behaviour by the Germans with the Allies allowed friendship after the war, whereas the atrocities committed by German and Russian against each-other left lasting bitterness that affects diplomacy to this day.
As for physical fitness, Hegseth shows an abysmal ignorance of history, in this as in other things. The US is regularly defeated by scrawny guys in pyjamas. Many of them bearded, in fact. As much as Hegseth may be a closet homosexual worshipping big, strong muscular men, these are not inevitably the most effective soldiers. Hegseth wouldn't have liked Audie Murphy, the WWII SAS or the like, but they were pretty effective soldiers.
A warrior acts alone, and ignores all laws and decency. A soldier acts in a team and follows orders, including the laws of war. Warriors kill the enemy, and are then killed. Soldiers defeat the enemy, and go home to their families. Hegseth is merely rationalising his part in his country being defeated in its recent conflicts. He has watched too much 300 in between drinking and abusing women.
I'll try to address some of your points. Though this issue may be impossible to settle because it is now ingrained in politics.
I am aware America was not alone in fighting the North Koreans and Chinese. But in a 1,400 word essay, it is simply not possible to address every caveat and nuance. Otherwise I would have copied and pasted Fehrenbach's excellent book here, and even he did not have the space to write about non-US militaries at length. Hegseth's mission is for America, not the world, so I delimited my subject.
I am genuinely curious, where did Hegseth say a warrior is "whoever commits the most atrocities and is most indifferent to the lives of civilians"? I would change my view of his mission in an instant if that is what he said, for I have no interest in massacring civilians. And I am also unsure if his intent with physical fitness is that our fighters need to be yoked. His intent seems to be ensuring no one is overweight so that a fighter is mobile and effective in combat, no more.
The beard issue is amusing and there is much talk about it for some reason. He has a good deal of respect for SOF, hence his admonition if you want a beard, join SOF. I imagine he would have admired the SAS as much as I do.
I have a different take on your warrior and soldier dichotomy. A soldier obeys orders no matter what the orders are. I picture the soldier at Auschwitz dropping Zyklon B into a shower hatch because he was ordered to. A warrior obeys a higher ideal that may never be broken, no matter the orders.
Hegseth has been consistent in defending accused and convicted war criminals, and in saying the US needs looser RoE. We both know that "looser RoE" is another way of saying "do whatever we want" in the same way that someone saying "those people" is racist. They're just too chickenshit to be blatant. But we know what they mean.
https://archive.vn/50vv4
Hegseth's claim is that having a beard is a sign of ill-discipline. If that is the case, then should the top soldiers not also be clean-shaven? He's saying the rules should not apply to SF. Consider how across the Anglosphere, SF has been more likely to be involved in war crimes. And put this together with his defence of war criminals and wanting looser RoE, and with his President pardoning war criminals - at his request, and that was when he was a news host, let alone SecDef. In other words, he wants SF to be able to behave with reckless impunity.
A warrior obeys his own ideals. A soldier obeys orders. But a soldier obeys all lawful orders. Every German soldier's paybook contained "10 commandments", which included,
"No enemy who surrenders shall be killed [...] Prisoners shall not be mistreated or offended [...] Civilians are unassailable."
https://stefanov.no-ip.org/MagWeb/shark/179/sh179c10.htm
Nor was any German soldier ever killed as a result of refusing to obey orders to kill civilians or prisoners of war, nor imprisoned, they were just transferred. And after the Battle of Kursk, it was ordered that any German soldier who wanted to go to the eastern front could not be prevented. So the German soldier who dropped Zyklon B down the shaft was neither a warrior nor a soldier, as he was disobeying orders, and was a coward avoiding combat. A genuine soldier would have refused, and then volunteered to go fight the enemies of his country, and treat the enemy honourably.
This is the usual way with men who committ war crimes, and crimes against humanity. They use "warrior ethos" and "orders" to justify their crimes and cowardice.
This article digs into Hegseth's psyche. His dislike of women and black people is obvious. But then, those Aryan types were always pretty gay. His undermining of the VA should be enough to make any veteran or family member of a veteran scorn him, whatever else he's into.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-dark-side-driving-defense-secretary-pete-hegseth.html
The warrior ethos, when directed at external (extra-national) threats, is a good thing.
The warrior ethos, when directed at our own citizens (both within and outside of the armed forces) is a bad thing.
(Glad to see you weighing in on these important matters with your special perspective, Sam)
Rock on Baird. The posse comitatus exists for a good reason. It looks like America is about to have to remember why it was invented, and not for the first time.
Sam’s today’s essay is very appropriate on the anniversary of October 7, 2023 massacre of Israelis. Although the IDF has the warrior ethos, some parts “fell asleep at the wheel” and the price to recover is monumental. It seems that easy times produce again complacency and we see the results. The IDF needs to also change its name to IWF.
Thank you, Barry. October 7th is a reminder for us all.
I spent my first five years in the Marine Corps with the Second Marine Division, serving in both Artillery and Infantry battalions, so much of what Secretary Hegseth said resonated with me. The emphasis on restoring a warrior ethos and serious combat readiness was on target and necessary for the force as a whole. However, combat readiness includes far more than combat skills and physical fitness. Think aircraft, ship, ordinance, and vehicle maintainer expertise. Think the logistics tail to keep it all running and on and on and on...
That said, my overall impression was that this was a political speech more than a strategic one. While much of the rhetoric struck a chord with combat arms veterans, it also sounded like it came from the perspective of a junior officer.... motivated, idealistic, and deeply loyal, but perhaps lacking the broader institutional maturity expected of a senior leader. I couldn't help but feel that parts of the speech demanded loyalty to something other than to the Constitution, and that should give us pause.
If Secretary Hegseth truly believes the military has returned to being a meritocracy, he may want to reflect on his own role in restoring it. Leaders must speak hard truths and know when to step aside, as he asked the Admirals and Generals in the audience to do if they did not embrace his vision. If he meant what he said about preparing warriors for war, perhaps his final act of service should be to hand the reins to someone more capable of leading the Department through the complex threats of the future.
If he truly believes in building a force defined by discipline, readiness, and integrity, perhaps stepping aside is the final act of leadership that reinforces the very ethos he champions.
David, I appreciate your thoughts, and I can also see the merits of your argument.
My sense is Hegseth's speech struck the combat troops most intensely as you mentioned not only because they want to more capably fulfill their function in war, but also because they witnessed first hand what more "senior leaders" did in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was quite similar to the Korean War in that our purpose there was neither an absolute victory nor simply going home—it was to remain indefinitely in a war zone with hands tied behind backs. All the while men were dismembered and killed. Many of these combat veterans believe a major cause of this travesty was senior leadership was not willing to ruffle political feathers. In other words they cared more for their careers than the mutilated soldiers beneath them.
It may be that Hegseth's youth, inexperience, and passion are what is needed to right the ship, assuming he does not make the mistake of going too far the other direction, which you alluded to. If he veers off course of the Constitution, if he places loyalty to a man over loyalty to the country, or if he goes the way of the senior leaders he opposes and cares more for his future hireabliitiy than his current vision, then he will fail miserably. Time will tell.
Every man and woman that joins the military must be ready to give his or her life and, conversely, devotes himself or herself to the study and practice of warfighting. There are exceptions, but by-and-large, that means each person in the military must be postured to take the life of a person within the bounds of just war.
For that reason, Secretary Hegseth's push to re-embrace warrior ethos at the institutional level is not an unwelcome shock. Same for the case you make in this essay. Still, I have questions about what this really means. In a word--what is the exemplar in this warrior ethos?
Many of us (myself included) who have sworn the oath of enlistment are not "warriors" in the traditional sense of that word. There are infantry and special operations MOSs, but for every one of them, there are dozens of support MOSs or other office-bound positions. Should it be the case that each of us embraces the Spartan exemplar and excuses ourselves from polite society because we are killers of a higher order? I mean all of this as a genuine question, not a snarky complaint. In particular ways, and toward what, do we who are willing to fight yet are confined to areas other than combat, strive? Who or what is the exemplar for data analysts, personnel-ists, crew chiefs, medics, divers, intelligence analysts, or cyber operators?
It's a deep and thoughtful question. I admit I do not have the answer, as my tenure in the military was in a small combat focused unit.
But from experience overseas in the tribal lands, the small Army unit which included non-combat roles ended up facing quite a bit of combat. Korea is another example. When the front line troops were decimated in the early days because they were not prepared for war, those who worked behind desks found themselves with a rifle rucking up mountains storming machine gun nests. I think the deeper point is that the military exists for one reason: to win war. And wars are not restricted to a trench on a mountain. It can come down to the plains. It can come to American shores. And when it does, neither support MOSs nor office bound positions nor civilians for that matter will be able to debate this question. The answer will be crystal clear.
That is the worst case scenario, but history proves it is in fact the normal scenario. We can turn to nearly every nation that has existed up until the mid-20th century.
I am not saying we all need face paint and mohawks. But my sense is the military needs to remain focused and prepared for the worst.
The military has wanned over the years I've been watching. I see it working next to service members today. It certainly is a kinder/gentler Army writ large and you can see that in the GO ranks today. They're politicians, not warriors and that flows downhill very fast to the savvy careerist. Hence why I got out after only 6 years.
I know exactly what you mean. If you haven't read Fehrenbachs book I referenced here, I highly recommend it. This is merely a cycle—it went through a far worse cycle after WWII which is why we got massacred repeatedly in the beginning of Korea. He very eloquently explores the many reasons why.
Early 80s Army was a cluster as well right after Vietnam. It happens, it can be corrected. People are just so wadded up about Trump they can’t get past themselves.
“In this world are tigers” has been sticking with me all week since I read this. Is it a quote from something? Such a powerful quote, I’m curious
Yes, it came from the book I referenced, This Kind of War: The Classic Korean War History by Fehrenbach. I couldn’t recommend the book more, it is fantastic.
Sam- I've mentioned it before, but this essay reminded me again of John McPhee's book about the Swiss Army. I do not know what the modern situation is, but they seem to have a somewhat cohesive path that values democracy as well as military reality.
I need to check this out, thanks Jesse. This is not the first McPhee book you've recommended so I'm looking forward to digging in.
In principle I believe in righteous and just wars. Carthago delanda est. We're not far apart in theory, we just disagree on the cases in question.
But the concrete question remains: is that what we've been doing? Are we policing evil? Saddam was no doubt evil, but that wasn't the justification used for the invasion. I'd speculate that neither the evil of him and his sons nor WMDs were the actual reason for the invasion; I suspect it probably had more to do with Iraq entertaining a return to the gold standard, similar to Gaddafi/Libya.
There's a case to be made that protecting the dollar as a reserve currency is protecting America -- but that case should be made if that's the objective. Just be honest about what we're doing and why, and men will be on board or they won't. If we really wanted to banish darkness from the world, why don't we liberate England and Western Europe from the evil savages raping their women on masse? I have no doubt the Taliban and ISIS are evil; shit, Islam itself is, historically speaking, a continuation of Hu'Baal worship. I and many others think literal crusades would be justified.
But that's not what the people running the show have used the military for, at least not primarily or as a primary objective. If it was, recruitment wouldn't be an issue; but while cartels are flooding America with deadly drugs and violent criminals and there's an entire religion with an ethos of destroying Western Christian nations, why is the emphasis on preparing for war with Russia or China? Is it about fighting evil or are there ulterior motives being masked?
I don't have the answers for most of it, if any of it. It's good thinking material, at any rate.
Even the recruiting pool is pussified; it's no longer a matter of turning men into warriors, but starting with what is borderline hopeless and hoping for the best.
Kids don't have dodgeball in gym class, let alone archery and rifle or pellet gun ranges like some of our parents and grandparents. Schoolyard fights are either heavily policed and punished or a pack of animals jumping a nerd.
There's a lack of tenacity in modern American culture. Even in boxing/kickboxing gyms, I'd say close to half of people either aren't keen on sparring after classes or don't respond well to pressure in the ring. When in a corner they'll shell up for several seconds without returning fire. They might respond when a trainer yells at them to do something, but their instinct is to shell up and quit instead of fight their way out of a bad spot.
But the flip side of the coin -- even if the lack of tenacity and training are addressed -- is whose war is it anyway? Guys train to fight knowing they may one day have to and want to win, but that doesn't mean any opportunity to fight is as good as any other. If full-on war with Russia or Iran broke out, what are the odds that it would actually be *our* war? What did Russia or Iran ever do to me or America? Who would I really be serving in going to Ukraine to fight? Russia hasn't fought many offensive wars in its history and the last time they made it to Paris to deal with Napoleon, they promptly turned around and went back home. Would invading Iran, perhaps the most naturally defensible position in the world and thousands of miles away, serve American interests or Israeli? What has Israel done for us?
I was still teaching whenever Russia's SMO began, and I remember students being outraged about Putin. I asked them, "If we decided to send the military into Mexico to deal with the drug cartels and human trafficking -- issues that have been a major detriment to our nation -- and Putin was all upset about us doing so, what would our response to him be? We'd say, "Fuck off, we're dealing with an issue on our border affecting our people and it has nothing to do with you or your people thousands of miles away."
Fights will come to us, we need not look for them or allow ourselves to be coaxed into fighting others' battles for them. Whose war is it? What are we fighting for? To whose benefit? Does it benefit us or America? We all know Jodi isn't fighting, but if we're off fighting leaving him as the only one to do the fucking, is that benefiting us or America? If the war we're fighting isn't benefitting us or America either, we end up losing and hurting ourselves and our nation on every front. And when a necessary fight arrives at our door we've expended our people and resources fighting for someone else thousands of miles away.
On your first point, I agree. We have a lot of ground to cover.
On the second, I have a different view of it. I believe we should have gone to Vietnam. I believe we should have gone to Korea. I believe in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And if there are young Americans who want to wage war for Ukraine, I believe we should support them. Because if America and the West do not police the world, the world will be a far darker place. And instead of the war happening outside our borders, it will be brought to our borders. My key caveat is participation in a war should never be forced. I disagree with a draft in any form, for if people do not want to fight in the war, the war probably should not be fought. And if it should be fought and people still do not want to wage it, then natural selection will occur.
So my late father was in the Royal Navy as a stoker. He left after he watched one rating stab another. He asked himself “why did that bloke do that?” And then he trained and worked as a probation officer for 30 years. I asked him if I should join the armed forces. And he said: “No, it’s just blokes shouting at you. And engine oil burns.”
Anyway, enough of my stories. Pete Hegseth believes in lots of pull-ups and he doesn’t like gay people. As we have seen in Ukraine, we are entering a world where mass-produced, cheap drones and mobile phones make the kill zone more complex and unpredictable than ever before. We need smart people with diverse experiences. I think pull-ups and not liking gay people will only get you so far. But what do I know.
It is certainly an interesting thought. I have seen plenty of footage from Ukraine of muddy trench fighting and the need for strength and courage to save men and civilians under fire—that aspect of war will never go away no matter how drones there are. And if we play drone warfare out, I don't see either the winner or loser ending the war once their drones run out. Flesh will come next.
More on the current state of drone warfare: https://meduza.io/amp/en/feature/2025/10/03/the-weapons-of-tomorrow
Right now, in Ukraine, someone who can operate a drone is more valuable than someone who can do lots of pull-ups.
“War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”
―J.R.R. Tolkien,The Two Towers
Sam, Your clarity of thought is an icy breeze that parts the mist. Thanks for another thoughtful essay.
Faramir! With a strong sense of Gandalf mixed into it, one of his mentors.
You're more than welcome, Asperges. Thank you for reading.
Ferhenbach’s book is a sentinel against just what you’ve described. As a former Marine, we still make ‘em like they used to! Good perspective, Sam.
I was floored by his book. He also was not shy about his love of Marines. Of all the troops on the ground in the early days of the war, he made it clear the Marines still lived according to the old laws even after WWII. They fought like warriors from day one.
Napoleon said - “There are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit.”
Spirit comes when fighting a just cause that’s in clear US national interest— not a limited war with unclear shifting political objectives…
TF Smith was McArthur’s tripwire force that failed due to his arrogance and underestimating the enemy- not because those men lacked warrior ethos.
Yes, let’s emphasize warrior ethos but a lack of hard training isn’t the real problem.
I'm not following your logic. That is not my conclusion. I recommend a warrior ethos in addition to hard training. Fehrenbach made it clear not only was MacArthur arrogant and the "war" poorly conceived, but the lower enlisted were terribly trained both physically and psychologically for warfare. There is only so much that can be covered in a short form essay and I chose the latter.
Thanks for the reply, Sam. And I appreciate your perspective! Yes, my comment may be cryptic. The short form is challenging to convey the whole layout of one's logic. I was attempting to explain that if the US fought a war that was truly in its national interest, then its culture and fighting spirit would rise to the occasion.
I appreciate the clarity. I have to assume you're right, assuming it is irrefutably in our national interest. But given the last decade or so, unless the value is 100% clear, it's possible neither the culture nor the fighting spirit would rise. It's just a hunch. And if it does arise, we need to make sure we're physically and mentally ready to crush it for the good of us all.