A leading military analyst has criticized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s emphasis on “warfighting,” calling it “macho nonsense” and warning that such rhetoric ignores the realities of modern warfare. Hegseth, a combat veteran and former Fox News personality, was appointed by President Donald Trump to serve as the civilian leader of the U.S. military.
However, his qualifications and approach have come under fire in a pointed op-ed by Pulitzer Prize-winning author and military historian Thomas Ricks, published by Politico. Ricks, a two-time Pulitzer winner and respected voice on military affairs, argued that Hegseth’s focus on aggressive combat undermines the broader strategic elements crucial to winning wars.
- Jennifer Aniston’s stalker declared mentally incompetent in court
- Kylie Jenner Explains Her Consistent Black Dress Choice With Timothée Chalamet
- Top Republicans Say Trump Is No Conservative and the GOP Is Living in a Fantasy
- Trump Pardons Chrisleys and They Jump Right Back Into the Public Eye
- Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’s former Assistant makes Explosive Claims amid ongoing Trial
“The more you know about military operations, the more you understand that you don’t want to focus on fighting,” Ricks wrote. “That gets people killed — like your kids or grandkids.” According to Ricks, true military success hinges on three essential components: manufacturing necessary equipment, delivering it to the right locations, and training troops to use it effectively.
He used World War II as a prime example of how wars are actually won, not through glorified combat, but through industrial and logistical might. “During World War II, the United States didn’t prevail by sending troops to die,” he noted. “It won by churning out tanks, trucks, airplanes, ships, and ammunition for the Soviets, British, and others to use. And to die while using.”
Hegseth has previously expressed frustration over what he sees as bloated military command centers filled with too many officers. But Ricks sharply rebuked that sentiment, emphasizing the critical role of educated, skilled staff officers in crafting and adapting wartime strategies.
He pointed to the Casablanca Conference of January 1943, where British officers outmaneuvered their American counterparts through meticulous preparation. “The Brits arrived with rough drafts of a variety of war plans. Indeed, they literally sent a shipload of staff officers to the summit meeting, aboard the HMS Bulolo,” Ricks wrote.
“Those well-educated, nimble-minded soldiers stood ready to churn out position papers on any subject the Americans raised.” Ricks also stressed that strategic planning, not bravado, is what leads to military success. “Great tactics without an effective strategy are useless, like a Ferrari without a steering wheel,” he concluded.
“Yes, that might sound boring on the campaign trail or evening news. But remember that knowing how to actually wage war alongside allies is the way to victory. Not this macho nonsense Hegseth is peddling.” The column has reignited debate about military leadership qualifications and the critical importance of strategic thinking in an age where warfare demands more than just battlefield bravado.
- Jennifer Aniston’s stalker declared mentally incompetent in court
- Kylie Jenner Explains Her Consistent Black Dress Choice With Timothée Chalamet
- Top Republicans Say Trump Is No Conservative and the GOP Is Living in a Fantasy
- Trump Pardons Chrisleys and They Jump Right Back Into the Public Eye
- Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’s former Assistant makes Explosive Claims amid ongoing Trial