Every military YouTube channel ive seen that brings up Pete, fully supports him and they are stoked that he was picked. I havent seen a single one that doesnt. If the SEALs love him, then he is the right guy for the job.
Right wing military MAGA YouTube channels. Shocker!
Idiot military jarheads?
Most of the insurrectionists were former military.
I did a search for what military folk are saying and I'm finding things like this:
I know why Trump wants him, he thinks he’ll be loyal no matter what, but are republicans this weak that they have to support this pick even though it’s clearly not a good one?
I wholly believe the entire reason he was picked was to put a loyalty test to people. Nominate a clearly unqualified person and see how many people will push back.
Trump's had enough time to figure out by now how unpopular Hegseth was even with Republicans early on. Before, he was just some talk show host on the news network Trump likes. Now he's a litmus test. If they can successfully ram through this wildly unpopular unqualified dipshit, getting every other nutjob his heart desires confirmed will be a breeze.
Every accusation is in fact a projection. The right claims every single woman and minority is a DEI hire. That the best people are overlooked to fulfill an imaginary quota or satisfy a “woke agenda.” It seems as though they believe that the only people qualified for any kind of skilled work are white men. And yet, they are the ones who overlook hundreds of perfectly qualified candidates for any given role, to instead place their most loyal yes-men and cronies into these positions. It is the right who is not placing the most qualified people in positions of leadership and expertise.
I was relatively neutral about him until I read War on Warriors. After that, I came to the conclusion that he is profoundly underqualified for the position.
Setting politics aside, I have more time in service, an equivalent level of education, and more deployments. By his own stated criteria, I and many in my cohort are more qualified to serve as Secretary of Defense.
Furthermore, I question whether he truly understands the role of the Secretary of Defense and its critical place within the National Security Strategy (NSS). His background does not suggest the leadership experience required to effectively manage an organization as vast and complex as the DoD.
Lastly, his argument that U.S. soldiers should disregard the Geneva Conventions is not only one of the most absurd things I’ve ever seen in print but also fundamentally undermines the ethical standards and moral authority that set our military apart. It’s a dangerous perspective that risks eroding the principles of lawful warfare and exposing our troops to greater.
Outright violating the Geneva Conventions also puts our own service members at risk. And it risks making wars longer and more painful.
As much is it’s a moral document, it’s a practical document as well. It’s a recognition that all wars end and then you have to deal with their consequences in peace. That’s why blinding weapons are banned. Is the military utility of blinding your enemy worth creating thousands of blind veterans who no longer can find work afterwards?
Disregarding the Geneva Conventions is something people say to make themselves seem tough, like the stereotype loose cannon cop. But really, it’s just dumb and would create a lot of bad effects without making it much more likely that we would win any given conflict.
That weakness of character (and competence) will be bad for anyone working at DOD or the Services. He will be erratic. Make knee jerk and bad decisions and the chaos will ripple through the force. Buckle up.
I could go on