Over the last couple of weeks, criticism of the Pentagon machinery has increased. Oddly, those finding fault with the Department of Defense aren't disparaging the decisions on critical national security issues but rather how the internal administration is being run. For Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, his office problems began when high-level E-Ring staff members were fired for unauthorized communications of classified information. Those eager to find fault with the Trump administration enhanced the story to create a larger "chaos in the Pentagon" saga.
Pentagon Faces Staff-level Situation
Despite the criticism, Hegseth has effectively done his job outside the Pentagon. However, as with all such narratives, there is an element of truth. Many of the problems can be attributed to a fundamental and troubling lack of key staff members steeped in how the Department of Defense, generally - and the Pentagon, specifically - works. Looking at the highest-level executives in the five-sided building, currently, only the Under Secretary for Policy, Elbridge Colby, who held a Pentagon staff position as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development for roughly a year, has any experience. None of the Military Department secretaries and those nominated have ever served in the Pentagon.
Political appointees having senior executives with no Pentagon creds is not that unusual, but historically, they were surrounded by savvy, seasoned staff. As we've seen with key chiefs of staff who were fired, there was limited or no Pentagon experience. Dan Caldwell was a senior advisor to Defense Secretary Hegseth; Darin Selnick was the deputy chief of staff at the Pentagon reporting to Hegseth; and Joe Kasper, who resigned, was Secretary Hegseth's chief of staff. None of them had any experience working with the Department of Defense organization. Collin Carroll, also let go, was the chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen Feinberg. Carroll's only experience with the Pentagon bureaucracy was a short stint as the Defense Department's Joint Artificial Intelligence Center chief operating officer in the Biden administration. However, reports are that he was fired for "creating a hostile work environment," according to Military.com. Why an appointee from the Biden team would be brought in is indeed a mystery.
To put it indelicately, for sure, you had the blind leading the blind. You have a secretary of defense and a deputy secretary of defense who have never held positions of responsibility in the Defense Department with an equally inexperienced staff. Understanding how the administrative machinery works is crucial to getting things done. High-level Pentagon executives must have people around them who know who is doing what to whom and how decision papers are created and coordinated. You cannot appreciate the labyrinthine process if you've never been there. Worse yet, you have no basis on which to advise and inform your superior on how best to navigate the Pentagon's administrative waters.
Political Stripes
Another individual holding a significant position who resigned following his removal from being the key spokesman for the Defense Department was John Ullyot. He had served in the first Trump administration as part of the communications staff in the Pentagon, Veterans Administration, and the National Security Council. His duties probably did not include understanding the ins and outs of how national security positions are developed. There is no evidence he held positions within the Pentagon's operational or policy agencies until assuming his latest duties. Ullyot showed his political stripes when, in defending himself, he wrote an unflattering hit piece Op-Ed for left-leaning Politico. Ullyot called his experience in the Pentagon "a month of total chaos" and opined that he didn't "see Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remaining in his role for much longer." What Ullyot did not say was what he did to alleviate the chaos. This leads one to reflect that in a large organization, you are either part of the solution or part of the problem. President Trump's steadfast support of Hegseth suggests the latter is true.
In his defense, Secretary Hegseth made his case according to the Daily Caller, explaining:
"During the 'Fox & Friends' interview, Hegseth said it is 'unfortunate' that Ullyot has ‘misrepresented’ what is going on at the Pentagon in the press for political reasons. 'Anybody that knows John knows why we let him go,' Hegseth said. 'We did a lot of favors for John, he did some good work upfront, then he was moved along and asked to move along. Now, he's misrepresented a lot of things in the press; it's unfortunate. We did right by him and tried to help; he's spinning it otherwise. It's too bad. It's politics, I guess.'"
Regardless of the negative impression members of the media would like to project of Trump administration appointees, Hegseth is doing what he was hired to do. Under his leadership, there is more confidence among young people that serving in the military is an honorable pursuit. For example, the US Army hit its best recruiting number in 15 years, according to Pentagon statistics.
The representative and accurate portrayal of Secretary Hegseth's performance and what the president bases his support on is reflected in The Wall Street Journal article that observed, "In private meetings with top commanders, some defense officials described Hegseth as polite and appreciative in the early days of his tenure, leading several to think they could work with him…Several foreign officials have also found Hegseth unexpectedly affable and agreeable in closed-door meetings—a contrast to his aggressive public persona." Nonetheless, the leader of the Pentagon would be better served with people around him who know how the place works. There is an abundance of Trump loyalists seasoned in the ways of the Pentagon who would fit the bill.
The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliate.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
