
Pete Hegseth's confirmation was a massive mistake
America's secretary of Defense is its first line of defense. Pete Hegseth admits he couldn't always walk a line. So how will he hold the line when facing astute counterparts around the world?
Russian Minister of Defense Andrei Belousov, the former minister of Economic Development, has experience aligning his nation's budget with military needs. He launched an unmanned aviation industry that built 18,000 drones. China's minister of National Defense, Admiral Dong Jun, served as commander of the People's Liberation Army Navy and as deputy chief of staff of China's North Sea Fleet. He knows how to interweave various military services to function as a team.
That's called 'jointness,' about which Hegseth knows little. He touted his Army background in the National Guard as a qualification to be secretary of Defense, but just as different cultures, goals and methods divide allies in a coalition, they also divide military branches.
Training and loyalties begin and end with one's unit. Joint military action is critical for today's complex missions, right down to compatible communication software. Hegseth lacks the military experience necessary to prepare joint readiness for 10 years out or for tomorrow.
Readiness requires decisions about force structure and capability — how many divisions, navy vessels, fighter aircraft, bombers and missiles. How many troops, how well trained, how recently, and their familiarity with new equipment. Development and manufacture of new weapons takes five to 10 years and stays in our arsenal up to 40 years.
Former President Jimmy Carter's secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, had a Ph.D. in physics and previously served as U.S. director of Defense Research and Engineering. Brown led development of stealth aircraft, precision-guided bombs and the Polaris missile. He understood why the Soviets wanted to limit the range of those missiles to 600 km past border defenses, because it would the limit would tie America's hands. At the time of SALT II negotiations to limit the range, 53 percent of Americans lived within 600 km (372 miles) of our coastal borders; Moscow lies 700 km from a border.
The range limit of a treaty affects not only strike capability, but also how the U.S. researches, designs and builds weapons. By avoiding Russia's suggested limits, America is able to load multiple missiles on one aircraft with an extended striking range. How can Pete Hegseth, who lacks scientific training, guide future weapon treaties to our advantage?
On the other hand, both Andrei Belousov and Dong Jun, men in their mid-sixties, bring decades of experience developing innovative weapons of intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. For the last dozen years, Dong has taught in China's National University of Defense Technology. China's new powerful microwave weapon can impede the electronics in our weapon systems. Like secretaries of Defense before him, Hegseth will need to sit down with China to discuss limiting new weapons' use. He'll need substantial scientific tutorials to ace that task.
The four original Cabinet positions — the secretaries of State, Treasury and Defense and the Attorney General — have always dealt directly with the president. Former Secretary Brown spoke directly to Carter several times a week. What experience will underpin Hegseth's advice to President Trump under threats posed by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea?
Given Trump's view toward NATO, how will he manage the president's isolationism? NATO has been the bulwark for democratic political systems, an economic resource and the source of significant military contribution. In the western Pacific, Japan and South Korea can help us counter China's vow to thwart Taiwan's independence. Does Hegseth have what it takes to manage conflicting points of view when our national alliances and security are at stake?
Even before he grapples with world problems, Hegseth will face tumult within the Pentagon. Our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines compete with one another for money to research and develop new weapons, and for advanced training. Congress directs funds to each of the armed services by name. At the outset, the secretary of Defense must defend his budget choices — including budget cuts — not only to four military commanders but also to individual members of Congress lobbying for funds to benefit their states.
It's a grueling process. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs can be an important budget adviser, mediator and ally in Congress, but Hegseth said he intends to 'fire' the head of the Joint Chiefs, whom he deems too 'woke.' By cutting troops or bases in certain states, Hegseth may find himself besieged by angry Republicans who voted to confirm him. That's before his inbox fills with a tyranny of headlines that usurp his focus from strategic long-range projects.
It's not enough to be smart; it takes wisdom to manage 2.25 million personnel and about the same number of civilian employees — a force far larger than the world's largest private corporation. The secretary worries over short-term needs of troops in battle while formulating long-term programs to ensure American interests in all parts of the world. He must stay informed about any important international or domestic happenings and deal with them best he can.
As a television anchor, Hegseth had only to parrot news stories. A secretary of Defense defuses inaccurate news, advises the president, protects America's ability to sustain its defense, and keeps important long-range projects on track. To this important job, which benefits from multi-faceted management skills and seasoned wisdom, Republicans confirmed a brash, ambitious, historically unwise neophyte.
Joyce Winslow served as a spokesperson for Medicare in the Bush-Cheney administration, and wrote a book with former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, titled 'Star Spangled Security: Applying Lessons Learned Over Six Decades Safeguarding America.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
16 minutes ago
- New York Post
Anti-vax RFK could derail Trump
A word of warning to Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.: Restoring Americans' trust in the feds' public health decisions means hiring truly fair-minded, science-driven folks — not anti-vax crackpots. RFK Jr. last week canned all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), saying: 'A clean sweep is necessary to reestablish public confidence in vaccine science.' NY Post assistant editorial page editor Brooke Rogers shares this story.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Smartmatic Court Filing Describes Fox's Actions as a "Campaign of Knowing Lies"
BOCA RATON, Fla., June 18, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Smartmatic today presented overwhelming evidence that Fox not only defamed the company, but did so knowingly and deliberately, at the direction of Rupert Murdoch and senior leadership, in a desperate attempt to retain angry viewers. A legal filing submitted in New York highlights that Fox's reckless actions not only inflicted damage on Smartmatic, but undermined Americans' faith in free and fair elections. "Fox lies again. Internal communications reveal that they knew there was no credible evidence of Smartmatic participating in election fraud, yet they deliberately chose to promote false narratives against the company anyway. These communications show contempt against their viewers, the country and the President," Smartmatic stated. Smartmatic's filing stems from the defamation lawsuit against Fox over its promotion of false claims about the company's role in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. "This is not a case about freedom of the press," said Erik Connolly, external legal counsel for Smartmatic. "This is about a media empire choosing to lie for ratings and profit, no matter the consequences and no matter the damage done." Fox's Campaign of Deception The opposition brief details how, despite evidence proving that they knew the accusations were baseless, Fox executives and hosts internally described Rudolph Giuliani and Sidney Powell as "crazy," "nuts," "bonkers," and "comic book stuff." Yet, they promoted their outlandish conspiracy theories against Smartmatic. Internal Fox communications confirm that no one at the network had any evidence implicating Smartmatic. Yet, across 66 broadcasts and publications, Fox mentioned Smartmatic more than 100 times — part of what the brief calls "one of the most destructive disinformation campaigns in American history." Both sides have filed motions asking the court to rule in its favor. However, most of the important information in the motions is currently redacted. Smartmatic has told the court that it supports transparency and believes most, if not all, of the information should be unredacted and available to the public. Fox has not. The New York Times recently filed a motion to gain access to the filings, a motion Smartmatic supports. Separately, the Court is considering a motion to hold Fox accountable for knowingly destroying evidence in the case. Manufactured Villain, Real-World Harm The brief further explains how the Murdochs orchestrated a calculated campaign of lies, and how Fox embraced a xenophobic effort to portray Smartmatic as a foreign villain — using labels such as "Venezuelan," "Chinese," and "Cuban" — while omitting facts that contradicted this narrative. The result was death threats against employees and their families, lost contracts, and a global erosion of trust in election technology. "Before Fox's campaign, Smartmatic had a perfect record: 6 billion votes, zero security breaches," Connolly noted. "They were trusted worldwide — from the largest U.S. County to elections praised by international election observers. Fox destroyed that trust in a month." The Stakes Fox not only caused Smartmatic significant reputational and financial farm, it also damaged public confidence in democratic elections. The broader casualties of these lies include American democratic institutions. "The evidence shows this was a top-down strategy, not rogue behavior," said Connolly. "Fox can't hide behind legal technicalities or recycled defenses. It told lies. It knew they were lies. Now it must face the consequences." View source version on Contacts Media: Mrs. Samira Saba, +1-561-862-0747Integrated Communications DirectorCommunications@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How much could US gas prices rise amid Israel-Iran conflict?
U.S. oil prices hovered near a five-month high on Wednesday as President Donald Trump weighed direct involvement in support of Israeli strikes on Iran, making it all but certain that gasoline prices would rise for Americans within days, industry analysts told ABC News. The U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures price -- a key measure of U.S. oil prices -- has surged more than 20% in June as tensions between Iran and Israel have boiled over into an exchange of missile strikes. The back-and-forth strikes stoked concern among investors about a possible wider conflict across the Middle East, which accounts for a large share of global oil production. MORE: Israel strikes live updates: Iran launches dozens of missiles toward Israel The jump in oil prices threatens to raise the price of gasoline for U.S. drivers ahead of a busy travel period over the 4th of July holiday. If oil prices remain at elevated levels, gasoline prices will likely rise modestly over the coming weeks, experts said. A much more severe price spike could result, however, in the event of an escalation that ensnares nearby oil-shipping routes or draws in neighboring countries, they added. The national average price of a gallon of gas stands at $3.19 per gallon, which marks a 7 cent increase over the past week, Patrick de Haan, the head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said on Wednesday in a post on X. Gas prices have climbed in 49 of 50 U.S. states over the past week, with the exception of California, which experienced price relief due in part to the resolution of issues facing some of its refineries, de Haan said. The average national price of a gallon of gas will likely climb as high as $3.40, which would amount to an additional 6% increase, de Haan said. MORE: Israel strikes dozens of targets in Iran, including nuclear program: IDF Such a price increase could prove short-lived, Richard Joswick, head of near-term oil analysis at S&P Global Commodity Insights, said last week in a note to investors. Joswick pointed to tit-for-tat strikes between Israel and Iran last October, which caused oil prices to spike before a cooldown when both sides opted against escalation. "When Iran-Israel exchanged attacks last time, prices spiked, then fell once clear, not escalating and had no impact on oil supply," Joswick said. Aerial attacks between Israel and Iran continued overnight into Wednesday, marking a sixth day of strikes following Israel's Friday attack. That surprise operation hit at the heart of Iran's nuclear program, striking key facilities and killing several nuclear scientists as well as high-ranking military leaders, according to Israeli officials. The U.S. did not provide any military assistance or have any involvement in Israel's Friday strike, a U.S. official told ABC News. President Donald Trump told ABC News on Sunday, "It's possible we could get involved." A further escalation of the conflict between Israel and Iran could send oil and gas prices significantly higher, said Ramanan Krishnamoorti, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Houston. While sanctions have constrained Iranian oil output in recent years, the nation accounts for about 3% of global oil output, Krishnamoorti said. Iran also asserts control over the passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a trading route that facilitates the transport of about 20% of global oil supply. Oil prices could surge from a current level of about $73 per barrel up to $120 per barrel if the Israel-Iran conflict damages Iranian oil infrastructure or impedes the passage of some oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, Krishnamoorti said. That scenario would amount to a more than 60% surge in oil prices, Krishnamoorti added, resulting in a proportionate hike for gas prices. The average price of a gallon of gas would climb above $5. "If we see any throttling back of the Strait of Hormuz, we'll see a massive increase in the price of oil, and that will impact everything in the U.S.," Krishnamoorti said. MORE: Oil prices surge and stocks slump after Israel attack on Iran That forecast of a potential price spike for oil matched a prediction from asset management firm Lazard, which warned on Friday of a possible escalation involving "strikes on Gulf energy installations or attempts to temporarily close the Strait of Hormuz." Such a scenario would trigger "price increases upwards of $120 per barrel," Lazard said in a memo to investors. The ultimate outcome remains unclear, Krishnamoorti said, noting the scale of price increases would depend on the extent of escalation. "We may have just seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of price hikes," Krishnamoorti said. But, he added, "If oil prices continue at this level, it'll be a small bump for gasoline." ABC News' Riley Hoffman, Leah Sarnoff, Jack Moore, Jon Haworth, and Nadine El-Bawab contributed to this report. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data