The War on Warriors: An Ideological Purge in the Military
Pete Hegseth, in his book "The War on Warriors," diagnoses a profound identity crisis within the U.S. Armed Forces. The war on warriors is a process of systemic military weakening by prioritizing political correctness over combat readiness. The author points out that the traditional culture of purpose, oriented toward victory, is being displaced by a culture of identification, focused on image and inclusivity. This paradigm shift transforms the military from a merit-based formation into an institution pursuing social agendas, which, according to Hegseth, leads to the inevitable degradation of the soldierly ethos.
DEI Ideology: The Erosion of Combat Readiness and Morale
The implementation of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies is corroding the military's foundations: meritocracy and the brotherhood in arms. When performance criteria in promotion and training processes give way to quotas, the system loses legitimacy in the eyes of soldiers. Meritocracy in the military is not an ideology but a method of statistical life protection—weakening it directly increases risk on the battlefield. The conflict between identity politics and effectiveness manifests itself in, among other things, the lowering of physical standards, which undermines unit cohesion.
The crisis is deepened by Pentagon marketing, which promotes individual stories and lifestyles instead of heroism. Hegseth argues that "ordinary men" seek purpose and transcendence in the military, not inclusion. Shifting the focus from mission to identity results in record-low recruitment, as the military ceases to be seen as a place of initiation and challenge and begins to resemble a corporate HR department.
Rules of Engagement (ROE) and the Paralysis of Operational Effectiveness
Modern rules of engagement (ROE) have become a collection of liability clauses that paralyze commanders' decision-making. The slogan "More Lethality, Less Lawyers" reflects the need to restore the primacy of combat instinct over legal analysis. The presumption of civilian status policy introduced in 2023 forces soldiers to treat every individual as a non-combatant until undeniable evidence of hostility appears. In the conditions of asymmetric warfare, where the enemy does not follow conventions, such an approach forces hesitation that often ends in a soldier's death.
Critics of the current system advocate for a return to traditional jus in bello principles, which provide victors with the tools to conduct operations effectively. Excessive legal rigor in combat zones creates an asymmetry in favor of terrorist groups. A military that feels like a "lawyer with a rifle" loses its lethality—the ability to deliver a decisive blow before the opponent exploits the defenders' bureaucratic constraints.
The Hegseth Program: Depoliticization and the Combat Ethos
The analysis of the failure in Afghanistan revealed a crisis of accountability among senior leadership. Despite the strategic defeat, no general resigned, and the revolving door phenomenon—the seamless transition from the Pentagon to the boards of defense contractors—raises questions about leadership ethics. The Hegseth Program calls for a radical depoliticization of structures: removing commanders who promote ideological agendas and restoring promotions based solely on performance and combat readiness.
The foundation of military rebirth is to be channeled masculinity—forging raw energy into competence and discipline. Instead of treating soldiers as potential threats (e.g., through "internal extremism" training), the system should offer them a heroic sense of service. The reform involves simplifying structures, tightening physical standards, and returning to the "We are all green" doctrine, where the color of the uniform invalidates all identity divisions.
Summary
Will we sacrifice combat effectiveness in the name of social justice? Will a military that strives to be a mirror of society lose its primary function? Perhaps in this constant adaptation to changing times, we forget that at the end of this game of identity and inclusion, an enemy still waits—one who does not play by our rules.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF