Excavations


... nothing is more essential to public interest than the preservation of public liberty.

- David Hume



Sunday, March 8, 2026

Pete Hegseth’s problem with War Psychosis: “A very dangerous person”

Critics say brash, bombastic Fox News host out of his depth to guide US military through murky new Middle East conflict

Brash and bellicose, he sounded more like a cartoon bully than a sombre statesman. “Death and destruction from the sky all day long,” Pete Hegseth, wearing a red, white and and blue tie and pocket square, bragged to reporters at the Pentagon near Washington. “This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.”

Hegseth, 45, a former Fox News TV host who now commands the world’s most powerful military, has this week become the face of Donald Trump’s war in Iran. That has set off alarm bells for critics who warn that the Secretary of Defense – pointedly rebranded “Secretary of War” – has rapidly transformed the Pentagon into the staging ground for an ideological and religious crusade.

With machismo, Christian nationalism and callousness toward the lives of US troops, they say, Hegseth’s puerile displays on TV are aimed at sating Trump’s desire for a warmonger worthy of the manosphere. This was reinforced by a lurid social media video that intersperses clips from Hollywood blockbusters such as Braveheart, Gladiator, Superman and Top Gun with Hegseth and real kill-shot footage of the attacks in Iran.

Janessa Goldbeck, chief executive of Vet Voice Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy organisation, said: “Pete Hegseth is a very dangerous person. He’s a white Christian nationalist and has the arsenal of the United States government at his disposal and a permission slip from President Trump to deploy carnage wherever he wishes against whomever he wishes.”

Hegseth’s rise would have been unthinkable under any other commander-in-chief. Born in Minneapolis, he studied politics at Princeton University and became publisher and editor of the Princeton Tory, a conservative student journal, where he frequently waded into culture-war issues such as feminism and homosexuality.

After leaving Princeton, Hegseth joined the US army national guard as an infantry officer. His service included deployments to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba and tours of Iraq and Afghanistan. He later Revealed in a book that he told soldiers under his command in Iraq to ignore legal advice about when they were permitted to kill enemy combatants under their rules of engagement.

Hegseth became chief executive of Concerned Veterans for America, a conservative advocacy group, but departed in 2016 amid allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety and personal misconduct.

In 2018 Hegseth’s mother, Penelope, sent him an email that said: “You are an abuser of women – that is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”

Hegseth subsequently became a familiar face on TV as a contributor and co-host of Fox & Friends on Fox News, frequently interviewing Trump and defending his policies. He once wrote that, in the event of a Democratic election win, “the military and police … will be forced to make a choice” and “Yes, there will be some form of civil war”.

But Trump prevailed in 2024 and nominated Hegseth to serve as secretary of defence. At his confirmation hearing, senators raised serious questions about his record: disparaging remarks about women serving in the armed forces; allegations that he drank while on duty; claims of sexual assault and misconduct; his troubled tenure running two small veterans’ nonprofit organisations; and his lack of experience for a post overseeing the world’s most powerful military.

The Senate ultimately split 50–50, forcing the vice-president, JD Vance, to cast the tie-breaking vote. As defence secretary Hegseth has vowed to “unleash overwhelming and punishing violence” on enemies and promised to dispense with “stupid rules of engagement” – rules designed to restrict attacks on civilian populations.

Now, in his first week guiding the nation through a murky new Middle East conflict, Hegseth has largely forgone the solemnity of a traditional defence secretary in favour of the performative antics of a partisan broadcaster revelling in America’s capacity to inflict violence.

For years he had cultivated a hypermasculine “muscleman” aesthetic designed to play to Trump’s sensibilities and the rightwing media ecosystem. Now, faced with a geopolitical crisis that demands nuance and strategic foresight, he appears to many to be out of his depth.

Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran who was deployed overseas as a combat engineer officer, commented: “I wish I could say how cavalier, obtuse and hopeless Secretary Hegseth is at leading the Pentagon. I can’t even muster the words to describe his self-adulation, matched only in scope by his apparent moral depravity.”

She added: “Let’s not forget that Pete Hegseth is a former morning-show Fox News TV host, and has this cartoonish persona, speaking what he thinks is tough-guy language, but sounds to me as a veteran and to many of my peers who served in combat like somebody who is completely inept and pretending to have this macho persona.

“Honestly, it’s embarrassing. We know this guy is incompetent. I wouldn’t feel safe leaving Pete Hegseth in charge of putting together a DoorDash order.”

Former White House officials share the concerns.  Brett Bruen, president of the public affairs agency Global Situation Room and former global engagement director of the Barack Obama administration, said: “Hegseth is ill-suited for the kind of reassurance and strategy that Americans and our allies need to hear from the Pentagon right now.

“They don’t need a bumper sticker. They don’t need the bravado and the brashness that he brings. They need to know that America’s military is in strong, stable hands and what we have seen in his first couple of war press conferences is an inability to move beyond this Fox personality and into the role of leader of our nation’s military at a time of war.”

During his Pentagon briefing on the war on Wednesday, Hegseth adopted a bombastic tone, saying of Iranian leaders: “They are toast and they know it. Or at least soon enough they will know it. America is winning – decisively, devastatingly and without mercy.”

He bashed “fake news” while addressing the six army reservists killed in an Iranian attack on an operations center in Kuwait. “When a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it’s front-page news. I get it. The press only wants to make the president look bad. But try for once to report the reality. The terms of this war will be set by us at every step.”

The comments provoked uproar for their lack of empathy for America’s fallen. Jeremy Varon, a history professor at the New School for Social Research in New York, said: “That’s outrageous. You have a national effort by all media regardless of partisan bent to memorialise and honour the dead and he sees that simply as a tactic to bring down Trump.”

There was another aspect of Hegseth’s personality barely addressed by the Senate: his sympathy for Christian nationalism. Photos have shown him bearing two tattoos associated with crusader imagery. One depicts the Jerusalem cross – a cluster of five crosses long connected to medieval crusader iconography – on his chest.

Nearby is an image of a sword accompanied by the Latin phrase “Deus vult”, meaning “God wills it”, a slogan historically linked to the crusades and revived in recent years by various far-right groups. It appeared on clothing and flags carried by some participants in the January 6 Capitol attack.

Nor are the references merely symbolic. In his 2020 book, American Crusade, Hegseth wrote that those who benefit from “western civilisation” should “thank a crusader”. The book suggests that democratic politics alone may not suffice to achieve the goals of his political allies, declaring: “Voting is a weapon, but it’s not enough. We don’t want to fight, but, like our fellow Christians one thousand years ago, we must.”

There have been reports of more troubling behaviour. The New Yorker reported that a colleague at Concerned Veterans for America complained that he and another man repeatedly shouted “Kill all Muslims!” during a drunken episode at a bar while travelling for work.

Hegseth has previously endorsed the doctrine of “sphere sovereignty”, a worldview derived from the extremist beliefs of Christian reconstructionism (CR). The philosophy calls for capital punishment for homosexuality and strictly patriarchal families and churches.

The defence secretary attends Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, a church linked to the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, a denomination co-founded by the pastor Doug Wilson, who has openly advocated a theocratic vision of society in which wives should submit to their husbands and women should be denied the vote. Wilson recently led a worship serivce’; at the Pentagon at Hegseth’s invitation.

Robert P Jones, president and founder of Public Religion Research Institute thinktank in Washington, said: “This is not one or two comments. It’s not a kind of one-off behaviour. This is like a longstanding publicly demonstrated orientation that Hegseth has. It’s not just a glorification of violence but a glorification of violence in the name of Christianity and civilisation.”

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) says it has received more than 200 complaints from service members about military commanders invoking extremist Christian rhetoric about biblical “end times” to justify involvement in the Iran war. Such language could also be offensive to Arab allies and provide Iran with the fodder it needs to justify its own holy war against the US.

Jones warned: “It casts this not as anything related to the public – is it about a nuclear programme? Is it about sponsoring terrorism? – which are legitimate political concerns. It takes it out of the realm of politics and casts it as a holy war of a supposedly Christian nation against a Muslim nation.”

Doug Pagitt, a pastor and executive director of the progressive Christian group Vote Common Good, compares Hegseth’s worldview to the historical heresy of Constantine, who allegedly painted a cross on his shield to conquer in the name of God – a theology the broader Christian church has spent centuries trying to distance itself from following the horrors of the Crusades.

Pagitt said: “It seems to me that Pete Hegseth has a worldview, which is contorted toward thinking that this administration has a particular divine calling. He believes – because he said it – that God has uniquely ordained Donald Trump and those that he chooses to accomplish very specific purposes in the world.

“Pete Hegseth’s own version of Christianity is one that’s built around a certain Christian advancement that comes through the domination of the governments of nations. He believes that not only is the military at his disposal to use for his purposes but it’s there to fulfill God’s agenda for the world.”

By David Smith in The Gurdian, published online on Sun 8 Mar 2026 09.00 GMT
Originally published online with the title: ‘A very dangerous person’: alarm as Pete Hegseth revels in carnage of Iran war.

A Switch in Time

The following letter to the editor was sent to  the Globe and Mail on 03 March.  It was not published.

Re: Dark days ahead for B.C. – literally (Opinion, 03 Mar.)

Dear Editor,

As I see it, the underlying reason for British Columbia’s upcoming switch to permanent Daylight Saving Time is clear as the light of day: look to geopolitics.  It is a direct response to the march of war in Iran and the Middle East as brought on by the USA and Israel.  The terms Spring Forward and Fall Back evoke manoeuvres from the First World War when DST became widespread.  So, premier David Eby may, in part, be signalling NDP antimilitarism.  But what better way is there to indicate non-alignment with present-day U.S. interests than by finding more time in common with things Canadian, particularly as some Albertans consider sovereignty.

Joerge Dyrkton 

Sunday, February 8, 2026

In principle “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition” - Federalist No. 51

It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

James Madison, Federalist No. 51 (1788)

Source: The Federalist Papers are easily available online.  Emphasis added.
Note: Compare the famous line “If men were angels, no government would be necessary” and the sentences following with Kant.  See my blog entry, “Kant: The crooked timber of humanity”.

Saturday, February 7, 2026

Trump as constrained by “my own morality, my own mind” and Federalist No. 10

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.

James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (1787)

 
Source: The Federalist Papers are easily available online.  Emphasis added. 

h/t: David Lay Williams