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

Elena Kagan is an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court and a former dean of Harvard Law School. Her role in The War on Warriors is significant because Hegseth highlights her opposition to military recruitment at Harvard as a symbol of what he sees as anti-military sentiment in elite academic institutions. During her tenure as dean, Kagan barred military recruiters from accessing campus facilities due to opposition to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which prohibited openly gay individuals from serving in the armed forces. Hegseth references his own testimony against Kagan during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, using the incident to argue that Harvard’s ideological stance on military recruitment is emblematic of the broader cultural war between academia and the military.

Hegseth frames Kagan’s actions as part of a larger pattern of elite institutions undermining military values. He contrasts her opposition to military recruitment with Harvard’s acceptance of funding from nations like Saudi Arabia, which have discriminatory laws against LGBTQ individuals. This juxtaposition serves to highlight perceived hypocrisy in the ideological commitments of academia. Kagan’s role in the book extends beyond her individual actions to symbolize the larger influence of elite educational institutions on the ideological direction of the military. Her decisions are presented as evidence of academia’s growing influence over military leadership and policy.

General Mark Milley was the 20th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest-ranking military office in the United States Armed Forces, from 2019 to 2023. In The War on Warriors, Milley is portrayed as a key figure in the ideological shift within military leadership. Hegseth criticizes Milley for allegedly prioritizing political correctness and ideological conformity over military readiness. One of the most notable moments Hegseth highlights is Milley’s defense of critical race theory (CRT) during a congressional hearing, where Milley explained that it was important for soldiers to understand different perspectives, including those related to systemic racism.

Hegseth views Milley’s statements as evidence of ideological capture at the highest levels of military leadership. He presents Milley as an example of a careerist leader who prioritizes reputation and political alignment over the readiness and effectiveness of the military. Milley’s role in overseeing the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is another point of contention. Hegseth criticizes the chaotic nature of the withdrawal, attributing the failures to poor leadership decisions made by senior officials, including Milley. For Hegseth, Milley exemplifies the broader issue of “politicians in camo”—a term he uses to critique military leaders who, in his view, act more like political operatives than battlefield commanders.

General Charles Q. Brown, often referred to as CQ Brown, serves as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was previously the Chief of Staff of the US Air Force. Hegseth portrays Brown as a central figure in the ideological shift affecting US military leadership. He criticizes Brown for supporting policies like “holistic readiness” and DEI initiatives, which Hegseth argues prioritize ideological quotas over combat readiness. Hegseth specifically cites Brown’s leadership during periods of reduced mission-capable rates for key aircraft, such as the F-35 and F-22, as evidence of declining readiness.

Hegseth attributes Brown’s promotion of racial and gender quotas in officer commissioning programs as an example of ideological mission creep within military institutions. Hegseth frames Brown’s actions as representative of a larger cultural trend in which military priorities are shifted to accommodate political and social goals. Supporters of Brown, however, argue that his emphasis on inclusion aligns with modern military needs for recruitment and unit cohesion in a diverse society. Critics of Hegseth’s portrayal might argue that Brown’s approach addresses long-standing disparities in representation and access to leadership roles. Nevertheless, Hegseth presents Brown as a symbol of a larger ideological shift, one that he claims threatens the warrior ethos and the effectiveness of the armed forces.

Colonel Michael Steele is a former US Army officer and commander of the 3rd Battalion, 101st Airborne Division. He is best known for his role in Operation Gothic Serpent, the mission to capture Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid, which was depicted in the film Black Hawk Down. Hegseth presents Steele as a model of the “old guard” warrior ethos—a leader known for his aggressive, results-driven approach to combat. In The War on Warriors, Steele is contrasted with modern military leaders, whom Hegseth accuses of adopting a risk-averse, bureaucratic mindset.

Hegseth highlights Steele’s emphasis on “kill or capture” missions, which placed speed, decisiveness, and operational success above legal or political constraints. This contrasts sharply with modern rules of engagement (ROE), which, according to Hegseth, place soldiers at greater risk by requiring them to await legal approval before acting. For Hegseth, Steele represents a leadership archetype that prioritizes mission success over ideological conformity. Steele’s actions and leadership philosophy are used as a touchstone for Hegseth’s broader argument that the US military has shifted from warrior-minded leadership to compliance-driven bureaucracy.

“Evan Smith” is the pseudonymous name of a disillusioned cadet at the US Air Force Academy. His perspective is used in The War on Warriors to provide an insider account of the ideological changes within military academies. According to Hegseth, Smith describes how cadets are required to complete DEI training, which many view as divisive and demoralizing. Hegseth frames Smith’s testimony as emblematic of a larger sentiment shared by cadets who feel forced to comply with ideological training to avoid jeopardizing their military careers.

Smith’s story reflects one of Hegseth’s central arguments: that the ideological “capture” of military academies is alienating cadets with traditional military values. Smith’s perspective provides an example of how ideological priorities are shaping the daily experiences of future military officers. By giving voice to a cadet, Hegseth seeks to demonstrate that dissatisfaction with DEI training is not limited to conservative commentators but is also felt by those directly affected within military institutions.