The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free

Hegseth uses this term to describe the ideological and cultural divisions within America that, he argues, have infiltrated the military. By likening this conflict to past historical struggles, such as the US Civil War and the Cold War between the US and the USSR, he hopes to emphasize what he sees as a significant battle for the nation’s values. The term encapsulates his view of America’s internal challenges as equally threatening as external adversaries.

Combat readiness refers to the ability of military forces to effectively engage in warfare. Hegseth identifies this as the primary goal of the armed forces and critiques policies and initiatives that, in his view, detract from this objective. He frames combat readiness as being compromised by DEI programs, restrictive ROE, and the focus on ideological conformity.

CRT is a framework that originated in legal studies to examine how laws and social structures perpetuate racial inequality. In The War on Warriors, Hegseth portrays CRT as an ideological force infiltrating military education and training. He argues that CRT promotes division and tribalism within military ranks by emphasizing identity over merit. Critics of this view argue that CRT encourages critical self-reflection on issues of systemic inequality, which some claim can strengthen cohesion and problem-solving abilities within diverse groups. This concept plays a pivotal role in Hegseth’s broader critique of the ideological capture of US military leadership and its institutions.

DEI initiatives are policies and practices aimed at fostering representation, fairness, and belonging for underrepresented groups. In Hegseth’s analysis, DEI is framed as a threat to military readiness and effectiveness. He asserts that DEI initiatives prioritize social quotas over competence and merit, leading to a weakened chain of command and reduced combat preparedness. Hegseth claims that DEI shifts focus from warfighting to social justice, thereby undermining military unity. Supporters of DEI argue that diverse units are more innovative and adaptable; studies have shown that diverse teams perform better in problem-solving contexts.

The Geneva Conventions are a set of international treaties established to protect the rights of soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians during armed conflict. Hegseth discusses the Conventions in relation to modern warfare, arguing that insurgent groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban—i.e. non-state actors—violate these rules by using civilians as shields or avoiding uniforms. He claims that while adversaries disregard the Conventions, US forces are held to stringent standards that put them at a tactical disadvantage. This asymmetry, according to Hegseth, leads to greater scrutiny of US soldiers and increased reliance on legal oversight during combat. Critics argue that adherence to the Geneva Conventions protects the moral legitimacy of US military action on the world stage.

Ideological conformity refers to the enforcement of a specific set of beliefs or values within an institution. Hegseth argues that this phenomenon has taken root in the military through programs like DEI and CRT training. He contends that such conformity stifles open dialogue, undermines unit cohesion, and shifts focus away from the military’s operational goals.

Hegseth contrasts the modern emphasis on inclusion with the traditional military focus on purpose. He argues that soldiers are motivated by shared mission and hardship, not by efforts to ensure representation or diversity. This distinction serves as a critique of DEI initiatives, which he claims prioritize symbolic inclusion at the expense of operational effectiveness.

Jus in Bello, or the “laws of war,” governs conduct during armed conflict to ensure actions are proportional, and that they discriminate between combatants and civilians. Hegseth argues that these principles, while well-intentioned, are weaponized against American soldiers by adversaries who disregard them. He highlights how these laws can create asymmetrical disadvantages for the US military, hampering its effectiveness in modern warfare.

Just War Theory is a philosophical and theological framework that establishes moral guidelines for entering and conducting war. The concepts of jus ad bellum (justice of war) and jus in bello (justice in war) form its foundation. In The War on Warriors, Hegseth uses Just War Theory to critique modern rules of engagement, which he views as overly restrictive and legally burdensome. He asserts that modern interpretations of just war principles hinder soldiers’ ability to make timely, life-or-death decisions on the battlefield. By highlighting the disconnect between ancient principles of combat and modern legal constraints, Hegseth frames Just War Theory as a battleground for ideological debate over what it means to fight justly in a modern context.

In The War on Warriors, Hegseth defines leftists as ideological actors, often within academia, media, and government institutions, who seek to reshape the military’s cultural values. He claims these forces promote concepts like CRT, DEI, and feminist theory, which he believes undermine military unity and meritocracy. Hegseth identifies elite universities and civilian academics as the main conduits for these forces to infiltrate military institutions like West Point. Critics view this term as a subjective label rooted in political rhetoric, as the phrase “Leftist Forces” lacks a precise definition in academic discourse. For Hegseth, however, it represents a tangible threat to the “warrior ethos” he valorizes in the armed forces.

Meritocracy is a system in which advancement is based on individual talent, effort, and achievement rather than on factors like identity or quotas. Hegseth positions meritocracy as a cornerstone of military success, contrasting it with the perceived influence of DEI programs. He argues that the erosion of meritocracy through ideological initiatives compromises both individual morale and overall combat readiness.

Mission creep refers to the gradual expansion of a military mission beyond its original objectives. Traditionally, it describes the danger of a limited operation growing in scope, often without clear strategic goals. In The War on Warriors, Hegseth reinterprets the term to describe the ideological shift within military culture. He argues that the original mission of the armed forces—combat readiness and national defense—has expanded to include DEI initiatives, CRT education, and social justice training. This ideological mission creep, according to Hegseth, diverts resources away from combat preparation and erodes core military values like unity, discipline, and focus on the mission.

This term, coined by Hegseth, refers to senior military leaders who prioritize career advancement and political alignment over the needs of soldiers and the mission. He critiques these leaders for adopting policies that align with progressive ideologies, arguing that their actions reflect a loss of accountability and moral conviction. This concept underscores his broader critique of the military’s leadership crisis.

ROE are guidelines that dictate the conditions under which soldiers can engage enemy combatants. Hegseth criticizes modern ROE as excessively restrictive, citing instances where soldiers were told they could only fire on an armed enemy if the enemy actively aimed their weapon. He argues that such rules create hesitation on the battlefield, endangering soldiers’ lives. Hegseth attributes these changes to legal and political pressures, often enforced by military lawyers (JAG officers) to prevent civilian casualties. Critics of Hegseth’s position argue that clear ROE are necessary to prevent war crimes and maintain moral legitimacy during military operations.

This moral code emphasizes courage, honor, duty, and self-sacrifice as central values for soldiers. Hegseth presents the warrior ethos as a guiding principle for military service, contrasting it with modern ideological shifts like DEI and CRT. He claims that the traditional warrior ethos prioritizes competence, courage, and combat readiness, whereas modern ideological influences prioritize inclusion and equity. Hegseth calls for a return to this ethos, urging the next generation of soldiers and military leaders to embrace it as a counterforce against ideological capture. He does not consider the idea that the ethos of any organization must adapt to modern moral frameworks—in this case, ones that prioritize the well-being of all soldiers, including women, minorities, and LGBTQ individuals.