I met Pete Hegseth several years ago on Capitol Hill, when I was on the staff of the national policy team of the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) in Washington D.C.
Pete was leading policy efforts in the House and Senate at the time for conservative veterans group Concerned Veterans of America (CVA). He was always a very accessible and polite and friendly person even at a time when his popularity on cable TV was rising and in a policy community often consumed with large egos. The national veterans community often had leaders of such groups as Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) or The American Legion that were often inaccessible and “kiss the ring” types. Not Pete, he was friendly and very focused at the time for pushing for strong reforms to VA healthcare to allow veterans more choices when the VA failed to provide proper care. Pete’s vision for VA healthcare at the time was considered “ controversial” among legacy VSOs but he turned out to be right.
Some years later I appeared on Fox News Channel and was interviewed by Pete live on the air at least twice regarding foreign policy and veterans health policy. His worldview and policy knowledge on world events along with veterans issues was commanding. This is on top of his war time service as an officer and his experience lobbying Congress and understanding how complex systems work. He was able to extrapolate and identify the key issues on Capitol Hill that needed to be addressed to strengthen the VA system, and how to build coalitions.
The most controversial issues within the Pentagon going back to Eisenhower’s time were often considered “off the table”. Topics such as defense spending levels, or industry influence over policy makers which President Eisenhower would coin “ the military industrial complex (MIC)”. Later issues often unpopular to discuss would be the movement to “soften” our military or the issues of women in combat.
The reality is that these issues should never be off the table or be labeled as “political”. Our national security and the issues impacting how our country defends itself should be open for logical and robust discussion. In many cases, two things can be true. Women veterans can be a significant force for success and perform to very high standards in a wartime setting, while at the same time combat roles and the factors surrounding them should be examinable.
One thing that bothered me is that when I served in Iraq in 2003 with the 800th Military Police Brigade is that despite most of the women in my unit doing great at their duties while we were at war, some of the women in our unit struggled significantly with carrying weapon systems during duty hours. Another fellow military police soldier I served with had a psychotic episode and had to have her weapons taken from her and placed on reduced duty. I am not bringing this up to create a political issue but rather to illustrate the practical implications that for troops serving in combat zones it is an existential threat at times to ignore the standards and training policies that precede our deployments.
Pete took on these issues and knows that the policies of the past several years are social experiments and deter mission readiness. This is factual and not “radical”. Plainly put, women still have lower training standards than the men, it is a sensitive issue and like the American heavy metal band Metallica says in their song by the same name “ Sad but True”.
Today, in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system for example there is a campaign to promote women veterans titled “ I am not invisible”. The purpose of this is obviously to promote women veterans and create a more diverse culture among the veterans population. Besides having a women’s clinic which is separate and distinct this campaign places dozens of portrait pictures of personal stories and profiles of women veterans in the hallways of VA each labeled “ I am not invisible”. Yes, not only are they not invisible they are being loudly and boldly overpronounced over other categories of veterans.
Further, for some years some left leaning veterans organizations have lobbied to change President Lincoln’s words “To care for he who shall have borne the battle, for his widow, and orphan” to “they” or “she/he”. While, I am not discrediting the motivations for these changes I am illustrating there has been a progressive agenda at work inside these agencies and many veterans of all backgrounds racially and politically believe it is detracting from the intended missions. Defense in the case of DoD and caring for veterans in the case of the VA.
Pete Hegseth knows the issues and he has worked hard for years and been a leader who has stood up to criticism and been on the right side of policy issues and articulates the stakes well. While significant fire is being drawn on Hegseth for allegations of drunken behavior and I am clear about three things.
First, the Senate confirmation process is designed to be challenging and every single factor surrounding his nomination should be roundly discussed, and it will.
Second, many great men and women have struggled with alcohol throughout their life and it has caused significant trouble for many people (and societies) and I see an incredible opportunity here for Hegseth to not only own any past behavior but to publicly announce and privately execute full abstinence from alcohol from this day forward. This is the type of corrective action leaders take at key moments and it can only help.
Thirdly, Pete’s leadership potential would culminate by making our nation stronger and more open to smart evolution to the threats of tomorrow while focusing on mission readiness and moving away from the political distractions and weakened standards of recent years that has made our country less safe.
For those that think Pete is under qualified, it is clear Pete is more qualified to be Secretary of Defense than Barack Obama was to be President of the United States. For the critic, Pete would be under qualified but the General who sat behind a desk for twenty years at the Pentagon would be “ highly qualified”. To quote the Democratic consultant class years ago “ the point of having staff is to get leaders up to speed on what they need to know”, of which Pete would have high- quality staff.
Knowing him personally for years lobbying alongside him on Capitol Hill for VA reforms, his confirmation would put the United States back on the world stage as clearly the most powerful and focused military on earth. His confirmation would be a win for America and also assist presumable VA Secretary incoming, Doug Collins.
The bottom line is Pete Hegseth is qualified, ready, and on the right side of defense issues.