Do you agree with Pete Hegseth's comment that Obama created a moral divide between military and civilian life?
12.06.2025 03:46
Urged President Trump in his first term to pardon soldiers accused of war crimes (shooting unarmed civilians).
+×+×+×+ Image below added 11/26.
WTF was he talking about? I’ve never seen a linkage of morality between the military and civilian life. Soldiers are regularly asked to do things which are immoral in a civilian context, and ALWAYS HAVE HAD A MORAL DIVIDE.
Physicists Propose Cheaper Alternative to Particle Colliders: Supermassive Black Holes - Gizmodo
I would imagine the “moral divide” refers to the acceptance of gays in the military, but I’ve seen no evidence that this is what the OP or Hegseth may be referring to.
Since the Hegseth bio says he was a Platoon Leader in the Minnesota National Guard, I would view Hegseth’s understanding of the moral divide as seriously as I would Gomer Pyle’s platoon Sergeant.
12 women in this picture have 775 confirmed Nazi kills.
Why are Republican politicians so afraid to oppose Trump?
Regarding his “moral divide”, as stated in the original question, Hegseth has:
Nineteen countries permit women in most combat roles. Similarly the only developed nation which excludes gays from their military is South Korea.
+×+×+×+
˗ˋˏ ♡ ˎˊ˗ NEW WOMAN - analysis ˗ˋˏ ♡ ˎˊ˗
My first reaction to this is confusion and astonishment. But then, I recall that Hegseth was a Fox commentator and I imagine all manner of incomprehensible crap being on the menu.
Is twice divorced for Infidelity, after fathering a child with a Fox News coworker while married, and has indicated sex with unconscious women is not rape. Further, a woman who alleged Hegseth raped her while she was unconscious has been paid off to sign an NDA, like Trump himself.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
If these are the kinds of military moral divides Hegseth has argued against, I suggest he wake up in the 21st Century.
Addendum:
I’ve since (in a couple of days) read a bit more about Hegseth’s background and views. The article I read addressed a controversy about a tatoo as being associated with a right wing Christian Nationalist group which espouses a goal of incorporating Old Testament rules into American life and American laws.
Whole Foods is opening new stores in 2025: See locations - USA Today
Plenty of women have proven they are capable of serving in combat with honor and distinction. Service members such as Tammy Duckworth heroicly being injured in combat, losing both legs and doing so with the same honor and courage as men. She was co-piloting a Blackhawk helicopter when hit by a rocket propelled grenade. She was awarded the Purple Heart, Air Medal, and Air Force Commendation Medal, but none of this was under Obama. In 2004, she was wounded in service to the Bush administration.
A more reasoned approach IF I TOOK THIS QUESTION SERIOUSLY (which I do not) would be to research a little.
Regarding moral concerns about using nuclear weapons said “Who cares - they lost” about the Japanese.
Were any US Generals hurt or killed yesterday in Damascus, Syria, yesterday 5/9/24?
This shows his desire for “moral equivalence” between the military and civilian US is very different from what many average Americans would regard as “moral”. Regarding Hegseth’s views of “morality”,
Voiced praise for Waterboarding.
Taking a bit more serious tone:
I’ve heard that he is opposed to Women in combat roles. While many changes occured in military doctrine under Obama, these are not really attributed to Obama but to changes in our society more broadly. Women admitted to military academies. Women admitted to combat roles based on demonstrated fitness for such service, and based in part on womens’ own determination to seek service in those kinds of roles. These are an outgrowth of women’s own desires to break out of traditional roles as restrictive and the fact that those women want to explore their own personal capabilities and stretch traditional boundaries of womanhood.
Did he actually say it? When and in what context?
Has advocated fewer benefits for injured Veterans because long term support for injured Veterans is “contrary to an Ethos of service”.