Pete Hegseth’s “The War on Warriors”: A Deep Dive into Ideology and Military Policy
In his recent book, “The War on Warriors” (Fox News Books, 2024), former Army National Guard major Pete Hegseth presents a fervent critique of the modern U.S. military, shaped by a distinct worldview. Reviewed by Bill Doughty, the book offers an unvarnished look into Hegseth’s beliefs, particularly his blend of Christian nationalism and a call for a radical shift in defense policy.
Christian Nationalism and Symbolic Tattoos
A central theme in Hegseth’s narrative is his claim of being persecuted for his tattoos during his time in the Guard, specifically after being reportedly turned down from participating in President Joe Biden’s 2020 inauguration. He attributes this perceived ostracism to being singled out as an “extremist,” notably due to his chest tattoo of the Jerusalem Cross, an image historically associated with the Crusades. Hegseth proudly displays numerous symbolic tattoos, including “Deus Vult” (a Crusader battle cry), “Chi-Rho,” “Yeshua,” an AR-15 beneath a stylized American flag, and a cross with a sword, referencing a Gospel of Matthew verse.
Experts cited in the review interpret these tattoos and Hegseth’s broader messaging as advocating for a return to a pre-Enlightenment, militant form of Christianity, a “call for revival, revolution and retribution” and ultimately, a demand for theocracy. Hegseth explicitly declares his devotion to a vengeful, patriarchal image of God, often drawing parallels to Old Testament narratives, such as Gideon’s attack on non-believers, which he uses to underscore the necessity of fighting “domestic enemies” who violate the “Covenant that binds us as a community of faith.” His alignment with Pastor Doug Wilson, a proponent of Christian Reconstructionism and the motto “All of Christ for All of Life” – including in government – further underscores this theological foundation.
Challenging Military Inclusion and Diversity
Hegseth dedicates a significant portion of “The War on Warriors” to his controversial views on gender roles within the military, particularly concerning women in combat. While acknowledging the valor of some female service members like SSG Leigh Ann Hester, he frequently employs anecdotes about figures like Lynndie England and Jessica Lynch to generalize about women’s suitability for military roles. He argues extensively that “men are stronger than women” and expresses cynicism towards efforts to integrate women into combat units, suggesting women are better suited for “support roles” only. Hegseth also controversially criticizes military support for medically indicated abortions, labeling Department of Defense and VA assistance as helping “baby life takers.”
His opposition extends vehemently to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Hegseth criticizes what he perceives as the military’s embrace of “social justice messages of gender equity, racial diversity, climate stupidity, vaccine worship, and the LGBTQA+ alphabet soup.” He contends these efforts alienate “young patriotic Christian men” who traditionally fill military ranks, mockingly suggesting that “there aren’t enough trannies from Brooklyn or lesbians from San Francisco who want to join the 82nd Airborne.”
Redefining Warfare and Leadership
The review highlights Hegseth’s profound disillusionment with traditional military leadership and international norms. He criticizes previous and current flag officers, calling them “cowardly generals caving to beta-male politicians” and an “unholy alliance between political ideologies and Pentagon pussies.” This extends to his views on the rules of engagement, questioning the adherence to Geneva Conventions and advocating for a more ruthless approach: “Aren’t we just better off winning our wars according to our own rules?”
Under a hypothetical or actual role as Secretary of Defense, the review suggests Hegseth has systematically removed senior military and DOD civilian leaders perceived as “diversity hires” or those who oppose his agenda, including figures like CNO Admiral Lisa Franchetti and CJCS Gen. C.Q. Brown. Other actions noted include reinstating Confederate names at military installations and implementing restrictions on beards, which some experts suggest could disproportionately affect Black men due to conditions like pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB).
Implications for U.S. Defense and Democracy
The review raises significant concerns about the potential implications of Hegseth’s ideology on the future of the U.S. military and democratic institutions. The described actions — including purging ethical leaders, politicizing the military, restricting media, and potentially threatening fundamental constitutional amendments — point towards a trajectory that some observers fear could lead the United States towards an “authoritarian theocracy.” The piece concludes by noting that as the Navy, Marine Corps, and Army approach their 250th anniversaries, these “tectonic changes” pose critical questions about the nature of military leadership, adherence to democratic principles, and the nation’s standing on the global stage.
