Submitted by Gregory Alderete.
In the closing chapters of a declining empire, history warns us to beware of men who mistake valor for strategy, and ideology for wisdom. The appointment of Pete Hegseth—a television personality, former infantry officer, and purveyor of jingoistic platitudes—to the position of Secretary of Defense is not merely reckless. It is symptomatic. It reflects a republic that no longer values depth, experience, or restraint in the stewardship of war.
Let us be clear: Hegseth, by his own admission, is a culture warrior, not a strategist. His credentials are thin. His worldview is binary. His military experience, while honorable, is limited to the tactical level—the life of platoons, not nations. He has never commanded at the operational level. He has never contended with the real calculus of deterrence, escalation dominance, or great power competition. And yet he now presides over the most lethal military in human history.
Why?
Because this administration—once again spearheaded by Donald Trump—does not seek competence. It seeks compliance. Hegseth is not there to advise. He is there to affirm. To echo Trump’s instincts. To create the conditions, whether real or invented, for a catastrophic escalation with Iran.
⸻
Let us talk plainly: war with Iran is not a hypothetical. It is a hair-trigger away. And in the warped ecosystem of right-wing media, neoconservative fantasists, and Israeli hardliners, it is being sold as both inevitable and desirable. A preemptive strike—perhaps cloaked in the language of deterrence—would ignite a regional inferno.
The Iranian military, while vastly outgunned by U.S. forces, is not incompetent. Its missile arsenal is robust, precise, and positioned to strike in minutes. Israel, whose security is often invoked as justification for American aggression, would be the first to suffer. Major urban centers—Tel Aviv, Haifa, Be’er Sheva—lie within reach of Iranian ballistic missiles. A saturation strike could overwhelm Israel’s defenses, resulting in devastation not seen since the founding of the state.
And that would only be the beginning.
Should American bombs fall on Iranian cities—wounding or killing civilians, as they inevitably would—the response will not be confined to the battlefield. U.S. military installations across the Middle East and beyond will become targets. Soft sites—schools for military dependents, diplomatic housing, even civilian contractors stationed in ostensibly quiet regions—will find themselves in the crosshairs. Tehran will not view this as a limited strike; it will view it as total war. And it will answer accordingly.
Are we prepared for that kind of devastation? For images of wounded children at U.S. bases in Germany, Okinawa, Bahrain? For the consequences of a global war fought not on remote battlefields, but in the places we have falsely considered untouchable?
⸻
To endorse such a war is not boldness. It is ignorance masquerading as strength. It is the foreign policy equivalent of lighting a match in a powder magazine and calling it liberation.
There is no victory path in a war with Iran that does not end in strategic and moral ruin. The United States cannot occupy Iran. It cannot erase the memory of American interventionism. And it cannot control the cascading effects of an Iranian counterstrike—on Israel, on the Strait of Hormuz, on global markets, on the fragile fabric of an already fractured world.
The fact that Hegseth is not burdened by this knowledge is precisely what makes him dangerous. He believes, like so many ideologues before him, that history is on his side. That patriotism is strategy. That power is policy.
It is time for Israel to pump the brakes. Time for Americans—Republican, Democrat, independent—to remember that military force, unmoored from strategic clarity, has a cost measured not in news cycles, but in caskets.
Pete Hegseth should not be the Secretary of Defense. But even more urgently: we must reject the lie that his brand of simplistic bravado is leadership.
Because the stakes are not theoretical.
They are measured in lives.
Can we please keep the political venom off of this forum?
Fear of speaking the truth to those in power will only make the situation worse. The fact that trump has placed someone so lacking in the qualities and experience necessary for directing the US military should frighten everyone. We need to call this and other undemocratic or dangerous acts out.
Good grief, John, food for thought is venom?
Calls to “keep the political venom off this forum” betray a dangerous misunderstanding of civic responsibility. What some label as “venom” is often the righteous outrage of citizens—many of them veterans who have seen firsthand the cost of failed leadership, corruption, and apathy.
To sanitize public discourse in the name of decorum is to strip it of its power to provoke change. Democracy was never meant to be comfortable. It was meant to be honest, and often, uncomfortable.
Amen
So. You’re OK with Iran possessing nuclear weapons? If not, what is your solution to the problem?
Greg’s piece is hardly “politcal venom”. He states a basic premise, that Hegseth should not be Secretary of Defense, with some solid reasoning behind it. A well-written article.
It is political venom which supposedly, is not permitted by the Sub. My question to John and his personal opinion, why has enlistment in all branches of the military has jumped up since Trump/Hegseth have taken control of our military. I think that is the most important information that debunks your opinion.
I agree
Military enlistment fluctuates primarily based on the state of the economy, not patriotism. When jobs are plentiful, wages are competitive, and higher education is accessible, enlistment numbers tend to decline, as young people pursue civilian opportunities. In contrast, during economic downturns—such as recessions or periods of high unemployment—enlistment usually increases, as the military offers steady pay, benefits, job training, and education through programs like the GI Bill.
While patriotism does influence some decisions to serve—especially after events like 9/11—it plays a secondary role. These surges are typically short-lived and localized, often seen in communities with strong military traditions. Overall, enlistment trends are a reflection of economic necessity more than nationalistic motivation.
Enlistments increase generally when job opportunities for the least qualified are more difficult to find and/or qualify for. As a former combat Special Forces medic most signing up for service are very poorly equipped, mentally and physically for service life and certainly not at the battlefield level; sad but true
All Presidents appoint people to cabinet positions who agree with and support the policies that got them elected so Trump is no exception.
The reason we are in this situation with Iran is that the previous administration “unfroze” 16 billion (ostensibly for “humanitarian” use) and sanction waivers which funded Iran’s global terrorism and nuclear development program. The then Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin (a retired 4 star general) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (all 4 star generals) sat on their hands and did nothing. When you get to that rank, especially in peacetime, you can expect that these generals are as much politicians as they were military officers.
Pete Hegseth may have been “only” a major but he understands the common soldier and the realities of combat most recent. The lament of many soldiers is “Who the hell sent me here?” This has been echoed throughout time: I asked the same question as a Private E2 in Vietnam almost 60 years ago. One only has to look at unsuccessful military campaigns in the cost of human lives to see that generals are not infallible. They can be so remote career-wise from their combat experience that they lose their “warrior” perspective.
This is not to denigrate the combat experience of any of the previous generals who served at the national level . However they have spent the majority of their military careers climbing the ladder in essentially administrative peacetime positions. Hegseth may not have their higher level experience but he does have access to that experience through the Joint Chiefs of Staff aligned with Trump’s vision of what the US military is about: the “warrior” mentality. It’s about time that the private soldier had representation at that level in the military.
John Arbeeny, Major US Army (Retired)
Major Arbeeny, Would you care to comment about Hegseth’s egregious breach of security and the apparent lack of security consciousness among Trump’s appointees, and the military lives they threaten thereby?
Sounds like in-place underlings with contacts to the press were behind this. Hegseth has shown that there are consequences to behavior. Polygraphs coming up!
“The latest official potentially implicated in the probe is Colin Carroll, the chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg, multiple outlets reported on Wednesday.
Carroll’s suspension follows the removal of Dan Caldwell, a senior adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Darin Selnick, the Pentagon chief’s deputy chief of staff, from their posts on Tuesday.
“We can confirm that Mr. Carroll, Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Selnick have been placed on administrative leave pending investigation,” a defense official told The Post.”
Ah yes, the old conspiracy theory.
Defending Pete Hegseth purely on the basis of rank-and-file connection overlooks some key issues. Representing the “warrior” mentality shouldn’t mean ignoring nuance, diplomacy, or long-term strategy. The best military leaders—think Mattis or Powell—blended battlefield grit with strategic depth. While Hegseth speaks to the frustrations of many veterans, his policy stances often reflect political theater more than grounded military doctrine.
Without the “warrior” mentality you don’t have a military. The problem with military doctrine is that it often prepares the military to fight the last war. Sometimes a fresh set of eyes is needed to see what’s going on where boots meet the ground.
Agreed.
You’re absolutely right that without the warrior mentality, the military loses its core identity—its grit, resolve, and capacity to act decisively under pressure. But you’re also pointing to an equally important truth: warrior ethos alone isn’t enough.
That’s why you have a “civilian” as Sec. Def. and senior military officers as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Unfortunately, we’ve had “civilians” who have more in common with the Joint Chiefs of Staff (retired Generals as was LLoyd Austin) that the people who actually do the fighting.
I completely agree with you Greg. I am so fearful of what this administration is going to do.
HEY! A little “shock and awe,” what could possibly go wrong?
Gregory, thanks for your thoughtful glimpse through the right end of the telescope. Beating up the Houthis is easy. The target response for Iranian retaliation puts a different price tag on the merchandise of death. There are better paths to the peace most want throughout West Asia. But isn’t war more fun, manly!
Warrior up! sounds the muster among troops at ready; among council and the heads of state, it’s the language of imbeciles.
In the shifting sands of Middle East power dynamics, Iran has built one of the world’s most advanced and diverse ballistic missile programs. With missiles like the Shahab-3 and Sejjil capable of hitting targets over 1,000 miles away—including Israel and U.S. bases—Iran’s military isn’t bluffing. Its hypersonic Fattah-1 missile, allegedly capable of Mach 15 speeds, only amplifies the threat. This isn’t a drill—it’s a warning.
ow imagine Pete Hegseth at the helm of U.S. military influence—an unqualified media personality with minimal command experience and no real geopolitical expertise. That’s not strategy; it’s a stunt. Elevating someone like Hegseth, whose warrior branding overshadows his lack of global military understanding, injects volatility into an already unstable situation.
This piece, as well as a few others written recently, clearly violate the terms of “no political discourse” on the Suburban Times. Mr. Alderete has made his position clear that he is opposed to this Administration, and the affirmations he receives probably fuel his motivations for continued political posting.
This is a community closely tied to the military. Rhetoric lambasting the current administration (especially the Department of Defense) serves only to divide. Our active duty service members don’t need to be distracted by this drivel. The current direction of our military is on an upward trajectory: Eliminating wasteful spending, Removing medically disqualified personnel, establishing one standard for those in combat arms, improving recruitment. Foreign policy and relations take time to develop, especially in the void of such left by the prior administration.
Our nation is just 89 days into this new Administration. I believe those not emotionally distraught with TDS are willing to give them a reasonable amount of time to establish a foreign policy based on “peace through strength”. I think a former actor who nobody thought had the experience to be POTUS once coined that phrase.
Until “The Suburban Times” makes a statement reversing the “no political discussion” policy that was posted here years ago, this Veteran will respect and honor the terms for writing here. Will we continue to watch Mr. Alderete flaunt his apparent TDS and entitlement for “those rules don’t apply to me!” ?
There is not a “no political discussion” policy for The Suburban Times.
That said, since October 2021, the following has been – and remains – in place. “No election, candidate, or ballot related content, of any kind, will be published on The Suburban Times. If you’d like to know why, click here.”
You can find the above rule on the Share a Story page.
Trump only seeks “Yes People” without any qualifying credentials or experience. Loyalty is to him and not the United States.
I am amazed that so many people in Tacoma hate America, dumbfounded! Subjective law enforcement, if the law doesn’t fit your agenda nullify it, I realize that President Trump lost the Puget Sound vote, but he WON nationally, I was born in Tacoma, it used to be a great place to live, unfortunately heathens, murderers, gays, transgender, lawyers and women run the show, how pathetic!
You just rolled out every scapegoat in the country like it was bigotry bingo. Let’s break this down—Tacoma’s problems are because of women, lawyers, the LGBTQ+ community, and people who don’t share your worldview? That’s not patriotism. That’s a tantrum in a red, white, and blue costume.
Calling people “heathens” like you’re stuck in a Puritan revival isn’t exactly helping. Just because someone lives differently doesn’t mean they’re the downfall of society. It means they’re exercising the very freedom you claim to care about.
If Tacoma’s changed, maybe it’s because it evolved. Progress isn’t the enemy. Ignorance is.
Re: ” I was born in Tacoma, it used to be a great place to live, unfortunately heathens, murderers, gays, transgender, lawyers and women run the show, how pathetic!”
Jon, would you mind giving us the names of the above, please.
There are no names to give because this isn’t a policy disagreement—it’s pure, unfiltered bigotry. When someone lists entire groups of people—gays, transgender folks, women, lawyers—as the reason their city has declined, they’re not offering critique, they’re exposing deep-rooted prejudice. There’s no reasoning with it, only calling it what it is: hate.
Your words echo the same blind hatred and ideological fervor that led ordinary people to join the ranks of history’s darkest regimes. Like those who rallied behind the Waffen-SS, you hide behind nationalism to justify bigotry, ignorance, and cruelty.
Your mother must be so proud, Jon.
And Mr. Alderete’s extensive military experience, national strategic military and foreign policy experience qualifying him to make these bold statements is?
Military communities can better be served if personal opinions don’t seek to divide the force. Constructive observation without nuance or hyperbole should be the commentary from former military officers. With fewer than 100 days in office, this Administration seeks to reverse years of foreign policy neglect. The potential for war in the Middle East (Iran) does not rest on the shoulders of Sec. Def. I believe this article wholly misplaces the mistrust of the current Sec. Def. and could have better addressed the performance of our Sec. State, who is currently very busy with multiple issues around the globe. Negotiations with Iran, never successful in the last Administration, are moving in a positive direction.
https://www.axios.com/2025/04/10/iran-nuclear-deal-us-interim-agreement
Absent in the article is any mention of Sec. Def. or how he is anyway connected to foreign policy decisions with Iran.
More time is needed to construct meaningful debate on this topic, specifically because we haven’t even reached 90 days of addressing a foreign policy mess left by the previous administration.
Is the solution to allow Iran–a documented and active provocateur and outspoken enemy of America, Israel, and any non-Muslim democratic republic–to be allowed to have nuclear warheads? Iran has continuously, and recently, attacked Israel–the only functioning democracy in the region! Iran’s leaders hate Jews, Christians, and all other non-Shiite Muslims. Iran has a history, since the 1979 Islamic revolution, of supporting, directing, training, and financing Terrorism throughout the greater Middle East! Recent intelligence reports suggest that Iran may already have nuclear bomb material to place on their missiles. Iran is dangerously close to employing nuclear tipped missiles and they have already stated many times that they want the complete annihilation–total destruction of all human life–of Israel and America. America must continue to act from strength, knowing that a weak America is bad for the entire world and a nuclear bomb-empowered Iran would be catastrophic for the world. Do we think that any of Iran’s neighbors want Iran to start sending nukes to Israel? Or to Turkey? Or to Saudi Arabia? Or to Germany? Or to France? Or to England? Or to your neighborhood? Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons under ANY circumstances. Iran has proven their inability to play fairly in the international sphere and clearly stated and demonstrated their policy of total destruction of the West. Like president Reagan with the Soviet Union (aka, “Russia” ), Iran must be contained and countered using all means necessary to prevent the continued demonic tactics of Iran. Peace through Strength works!
This kind of rhetoric is exactly what sustains the machinery of war and the illusion of moral superiority. To speak of Iran as a singular, evil entity is to ignore decades of imperialist intervention—by the U.S. and others—that destabilized the region in the first place. We call them “provocateurs,” yet we forget who drew the first lines on their maps, who installed their shahs, who armed their enemies. The real question is not whether Iran can be trusted with weapons, but whether any nation should possess the power to annihilate millions. To claim peace through strength while escalating military pressure is to mistake domination for diplomacy. It is a failure of imagination, a refusal to understand our shared humanity across borders and belief systems. Your statement you’ve shared reflects a deeply alarmist and ideological view of Iran, laden with absolutist language and assumptions
So many opinions of what this administration is doing “wrong”.
All this strong opinion about national security after the previous administration opened our borders wide to anyone who wanted to sneak in.
The fentanyl that flows in has killed 100,000 or so Americans every year of that open border, and continues to do so till this day. Iran, or any others didn’t have to fire a shot.
General Milley, during the first Trump administration, secretly conspired with China to inform them of our military plans.
His rank was as high as anyone can attain.
Biden literally didn’t know if he was afoot or horseback.
We are slowly trying to figure out who was actually running the executive office while he sat on his beach chair.
As an enlisted special operations soldier, I know who I would and would not put my faith trust and confidence in – but they never paid us to be smart – they paid us to be brave.
Anyone who thinks they can effectively weild diplomacy, without the likes of a Ranger Battalion at the ready, is a fool no matter how many diversity flags you fly.
War is what happens when diplomacy fails and you are not taken seriously.
I laid out my humble credentials.
Now perhaps those in this thread who know more about national defense than our defense department, can share their credentials, so that we can all get a better understanding of these opinions.
Your service is acknowledged, but it doesn’t grant you sole ownership of truth or insight into national security. You ask for credentials as if democracy requires a DD-214 to have an opinion. That’s not how this country works. Civilian oversight of the military is a cornerstone of our republic—without it, we’re no better than the juntas you claim to oppose.
Equating diplomacy with weakness and demanding brute force as the only tool of international relations is not strength—it’s shortsightedness. You mention General Milley’s alleged “conspiracy” with China without acknowledging context or facts. That’s not patriotism; it’s parroting talking points.
And invoking the border as the root of all evil while ignoring the decades of domestic policy failure that allowed fentanyl to flourish is disingenuous. You weren’t paid to be smart? Don’t hide behind that. You clearly want to be taken seriously—so engage with the full complexity of the issues, not just the parts that confirm your worldview.
The valor and commitment of a Ranger Battalion are never in question—but valor doesn’t make a mission infallible. The events of October 3, 1993, in Mogadishu—etched into memory as the Black Hawk Down operation—are proof that even the most elite forces can be placed in untenable situations due to flawed political and strategic oversight. Rangers fought with extraordinary courage under fire, but that mission turned into a prolonged, bloody firefight in part because critical requests for armor support were denied by Pentagon leadership, and the plan underestimated the resistance on the ground.
It’s not a knock on the troops. It’s a reminder that warriors don’t operate in a vacuum. They rely on sound strategy, honest intelligence, and political leadership willing to listen. To suggest that a Ranger Battalion is a fix-all for diplomatic or global threats ignores the complexity of modern conflict and risks repeating past mistakes—bravery alone is not a strategy.
No one said a Ranger Battalion was a fixall, except you.
I have good friends who were there in Mogadishu, on that fateful day.
That action came soon after the top brass of the Army assured us that there would never be another “Taskforce Smith”.
They paid us to be brave
They paid you to be brave, no doubt—and Mogadishu proved just how costly that bravery can be when leadership fails to match it. No one’s questioning the courage of the operators on the ground, but courage without proper planning, support, and political will leads to tragedy. What happened on October 3rd wasn’t a failure of the Rangers or Delta—those men did their jobs. It was a failure at the top: a refusal to send armor, political hesitation, and an underestimation of the enemy.. It means we have to stop sending our best into fight with half the support and twice the risk, while the brass and politicians hedge bets from a safe distance.
With the exception of Hilary Clinton’s Benghazi, that has been a rare occurrence since.
Did you have to reach all the way back to 1993 to find your example – before the entire GWOT – or is that what the chat bot spit out?
In human history Peace through Power has never brought peace only kicked the tin can of War down the road a little. We have been told and shown the way to Peace for at least 3 thousand years, but most of us still don’t get it! A few who did were killed! Shalom.
You put far too much faith in human nature.
Look around today, as those who signal the most virtue become exposed as frauds.
There is one way to peace, but it has to be chosen on an individual basis.
Our armies are what keep that choice alive.
Some positive news about the Trump administration shutting down (for now) the neocons pushing for conflict against Iran in the Middle East.
As much as Mr. Alderete bemoans the current administration in his writings, there exists some common sense to this Administration not seen in a very long time.
Happy Easter!
https://revolver.news/2025/04/president-trump-and-his-maga-advisers-just-derailed-the-new-neocon-war-plans-for-now/
America’s strength has never been measured solely by its weaponry or budget, but by the steadiness and strategic competence of those trusted to lead its armed forces. The appointment of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense reveals a dangerous shift—from merit-based leadership to ideological loyalty. And our adversaries are paying attention.
Hegseth, known more for his appearances on Fox News than any significant command experience, represents a militarized form of political theater. He may wear the uniform of service, but his posture is that of a provocateur. Elevating someone who champions partisan narratives over nuanced policy undermines not just the Pentagon, but the very credibility of our national defense apparatus.
Foreign powers see the shift. They don’t need cyberattacks or missile tests to probe our vulnerabilities when our own leadership broadcasts them in primetime. What better signal of strategic fragility than appointing someone more interested in the culture wars than actual wars?
This is more than a bad political appointment—it’s a signal that America is willing to risk operational readiness for ideological comfort. It tells China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea that our defense leadership is as much a product of populism as it is of principle.
The Secretary of Defense should be a steward of peace, deterrence, and competence. Instead, we’ve handed the keys to someone whose playbook was written in the green rooms of cable news studios. And history may judge us not by the strength we projected—but by the weakness we appointed.