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

Hegseth believes American soldiers are waging a “two-front war.” The first front is the conventional war fought abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan, where soldiers faced insurgent threats. The second front, however, is within the US itself, where Hegseth claims radical leftist movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa are applying guerrilla tactics in American cities. This “domestic war” frames ideological opponents of Hegseth’s worldview as militant aggressors; he likens their activities to the insurgencies soldiers faced overseas. By invoking language of war and occupation, Hegseth draws a direct line between foreign combat and domestic unrest, heightening the stakes for his audience.

Hegseth reinforces this argument with an analogy, comparing US cities like Portland, Minneapolis, and Seattle, to the city of Samarra in Iraq—an infamous battlefield zone during the Iraq War. He suggests that the tactics employed by domestic protest groups mirror those of Iraqi insurgents, thereby justifying the heightened sense of threat. The phrase “progressive storm troopers” is a notable rhetorical choice. By invoking Nazi storm troopers, Hegseth casts progressive activists as a militant paramilitary force, aligning them with one of history’s most reviled groups. This emotionally charged and hyperbolic analogy risks alienating readers, but strengthens Hegseth’s central conceit of ideological infiltration.

The chapter also introduces Hegseth’s critique of military leadership, whom he labels “politicians in camo” (9). He alleges that these generals have capitulated to ideological pressure from civilian authorities, allowing DEI initiatives and critical race theory (CRT) to infiltrate military policy. Hegseth frames this as a betrayal of soldiers, who are expected to uphold a warrior ethos while their leaders are more focused on symbolic compliance with ideological trends. By emphasizing the growing disconnect between military elites and rank-and-file soldiers, Hegseth positions himself as a voice for the “true warrior” rather than the “careerist general.”

Hegseth also introduces the metaphor of ideological “infection,” characterizing DEI and CRT as diseases within the military. This metaphor emphasizes urgency, as infections are fast-spreading and dangerous if untreated. The implication is that the military must destroy these ideological contaminants to restore combat readiness. The medical metaphor adds to the emotional weight of his argument and signals his call for immediate, corrective action. However, critics challenge the fairness of framing ideological change as illness, particularly in light of the US military’s constitutional duty to remain apolitical and adaptable to civilian oversight.

Counterpoints to Hegseth’s claims emerge from authoritative sources like the Department of Defense (DoD), which presents diversity initiatives as a “force multiplier” that enhances operational effectiveness. In a 2022 article, the DoD highlights that diversity within the armed forces fosters innovative solutions to complex national security challenges. Bishop Garrison, senior advisor for diversity, equity, and inclusion, emphasizes that such initiatives attract a broader talent pool and bolster military lethality through diverse perspectives (Garamone, Jim. “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Are Necessities in US Military.” Defense.gov, Feb. 9, 2022).

Conversely, critics from Arizona State University’s Center for American Institutions argue that DEI initiatives may undermine military effectiveness. Their study suggests that such policies often conflict with traditional military values like meritocracy and unit cohesion (Lohmeier, Matt, et al. “Civic Education in the Military: Are Servicemembers More Prepared for Micro-Aggression or Macro-Aggression?” Arizona State University, Center for American Institutions, 2024). This perspective aligns more closely with Hegseth’s concerns about DEI-driven erosion of readiness and morale.

Hegseth’s message is clear: If left unchallenged, ideological infiltration will weaken the armed forces’ ability to defend the nation. He ends the chapter with a call for a “frontal assault” on these ideological forces, using the language of combat to rally his readers to action. Despite its rhetorical flourishes, the chapter leaves several questions unanswered, such as how to define “extremism” in a way that ensures operational readiness without compromising military integrity.

Chapter 2 focuses on the topic of extremism within the US military, which became a central policy priority in 2021. Hegseth begins with a critique of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s decision to order a military-wide “stand-down” to address extremism following the January 6 Capitol riots. Hegseth frames this move as an overreaction, emphasizing that only a few active-duty soldiers were involved in that 2021 riot. Given the small number of implicated soldiers, Hegseth argues that the stand-down was politically motivated, rather than based on a legitimate operational threat.

Hegseth’s critique centers on the formation of the Countering Extremism Working Group (CEWG), led by Bishop Garrison. He portrays Garrison as a radical ideologue with ties to CRT and DEI initiatives, using the phrase “a real bigot” (40) to emphasize his belief that Garrison’s ideological agenda targeted conservative soldiers. Hegseth’s portrayal of the anti-extremism initiative as a “witch hunt” draws on Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, where innocent people were condemned on flimsy accusations. This analogy frames military policy as hysterical and unjust, casting conservative soldiers as victims of ideological persecution.

Another key critique is Hegseth’s assertion that the military’s definition of extremism is too vague, which allows for ideological bias in enforcement. He argues that this ambiguity opens the door for political manipulation, leading to the unjust targeting of soldiers for ideological nonconformity rather than operational misconduct.

A RAND Corporation study on extremism in the US military found that fewer than 1% of service members were associated with extremist activities, aligning with Hegseth’s claim that extremism is not a pervasive issue (Helmus, Todd C., et al. “Countering Violent Extremism in the U.S. Military"). However, the same study underscores the importance of proactive measures, such as phased interventions and monitoring attitudes, to address even isolated instances of extremism effectively. This broader context complicates Hegseth’s argument by demonstrating that extremism policies aim to enhance unit cohesion and public trust, rather than solely targeting ideological dissent.

The Department of Defense has emphasized that its anti-extremism policies are designed to safeguard the integrity of military service. A 2022 DoD report clarifies that the policies focus on behaviors and actions, rather than targeting specific ideologies or political beliefs, which directly counters Hegseth’s claim of a biased “witch hunt” (Garamone, Jim. “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Are Necessities in U.S. Military”). The report further supports the importance of distinguishing legitimate security threats from unfounded ideological critiques, reinforcing the military’s apolitical stance.

Hegseth concludes that extremism policies are a distraction from military readiness. He argues that stigmatizing patriotic soldiers as extremists undermines cohesion and erodes morale, while ideological conformity is prioritized over combat effectiveness. This reflects the overarching theme of The Erosion of Military Readiness and Effectiveness, where Hegseth contends that ideological experimentation within the ranks comes at the cost of military efficiency. While Hegseth’s critique relies on emotional appeals, studies and reports demonstrate a more nuanced debate around extremism policies and their role in maintaining the balance between operational readiness and ethical accountability.