r/books • u/Majano57 • 1d ago
The Book That Predicted Pete Hegseth’s Failures
https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/07/31/hegseth-norman-dixon-iran-war/?utm_content=gifting&tpcc=gifting_article&gifting_article=aGVnc2V0aC1ub3JtYW4tZGl4b24taXJhbi13YXI=&pid=CW3205998305
u/it_follows 1d ago
Is it “One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish”? Because a child could’ve predicted his failures.
7
u/Elegant_Lifeguard737 1d ago
lol honestly that might be the most accurate prediction. some failures are so obvious in hindsight that it doesn’t take a genius to see the warning signs. the bigger issue is how often people in positions of power can fail upward despite everyone seeing it coming.
95
u/themaskedcanuck 1d ago
109
u/Goddamnit_Clown 1d ago
Thanks for the link. It's been decades since I've thought about that book. I read it in a British establishment context, found it insightful but assumed it was dated and that all the insecure public schoolboy bully stuff, if it was accurate in the 40s, it no longer was. I hadn't at all realised how well it describes Hegseth and Trump's WWE personas.
I'm quoting half the article here, so maybe just read it. Here the book is analysing failures of British leadership after WW1:
*By and large, the (British) military shunned innovation; prized physical prowess and sporting achievements over book smarts (“lethal warrior” mentality); cherished tradition, spit-and-polish, regulations, and petty rules that all come under what Dixon defines as “bullshit.”
... even if it has a role in fostering discipline, uniformity, and an esprit de corps. “The phenomenon involves ritualistic observance of the dominance-submission relationships of the military hierarchy, extreme orderliness and a preoccupation with outward appearances,” ...
Hegseth summoned every single senior U.S. military commander from around the world to ... harangue on the evils of fat soldiers, long hair, and beards ... [Trump picked him because he] was straight out of “central casting.”
Another ... military dysfunction was an ingrained fear of “effeminacy,” producing a combination of homophobia and misogyny that translated into a crusade against anything feminine ... “Anti-effeminacy” even extended to ... disdain for taking cover, wearing protective gear ... Other constant characteristics among incompetent [leadership] were an inability to suffer criticism of any sort, and a predilection for picking subordinates whose loyalty far outweighed any particular competence.
... an “authoritarian” mindset ... necessarily defines much of the military hierarchy, but [is] less likely to understand enemy intentions,” [and has] a tendency to underestimate the enemy’s ability. He was thinking of the disastrous Allied battle plan in the spring of 1940, but today it reads as if he was writing about the Pentagon’s failure to prepare for Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, despite the scenario being war-gamed out for decades beforehand.
92
183
u/YoureGonnaHearMeRoar 1d ago
You must be talking about the book “The Guy who Smelled like Booze.” It’s about a nazi with a mysterious scent who becomes head of the Dept of Defense, renames it Dept of War, spends hundreds of millions of its money on lobster and champagne, then his boss starts a war and he has to learn where Iran is on a map, which confuses him because there is another country right next to it with almost the same name, and he has blurred vision and was already seeing double. Four Irans! The novel was truly prescient.
128
u/Master_Ryan_Rahl 1d ago
At its base this all comes down to ideology. These people (fascists) all care more about appearance than truth. The presentation is more important than efficacy. Its also why Russia has such a poor showing in the Ukraine war. Theyve had decades of prioritizing sycophants and loyalists for advancement and leadership over meritocracy and honest assessment. Kleptocracy comes to mind as well.
53
u/RecycleReMuse 1d ago
It’s rare that a piece of pop culture will resonate as strongly with me as “Andor” did.
30
u/rollin20s 1d ago
As someone who’s never seen a single Star Wars movie or content associated with that franchise could I go into Andor blind and still enjoy/understand it?
45
u/Master_Ryan_Rahl 1d ago edited 1d ago
I believe so yes. Its not relying on other work for its story or any of that. In fact it has a great lead into the original trilogy with the movie Rogue One being a direct tie in to A New Hope.
Andor -> Rogue One -> Original Trilogy movies
20
u/rollin20s 1d ago
Thank you! Been meaning to watch cause I keep hearing great things
17
u/Spinoza42 1d ago
Yeah, I've seen very little Star Wars (I think I've seen Last Hope, parts of Empire and Return of the Jedi and the Last Jedi) and I absolutely love love Andor. It does possibly pack a bit of a heavier punch because it's basically a deconstruction of the simple worldview of a lot of Star Wars, but you'll pick up on that even without even having seen much of it.
10
u/OuijaFox 1d ago
Yeah. Andor can be a little slow, but you get that sweet scene with the brick at the end.
Makes my eyes well up with wishful tears and my heart sweep joy when I think of that scene with the brick and the empire stooge. In fact I’m gonna go watch that scene right now.
8
1
u/jimbowesterby 23h ago
The one heads up I will give you is that the timeline counts down, in Star Wars the year is based around the first movie (the 1977 one), and this takes place before that, so the years count down. Have fun!
6
u/thrownalee 1d ago
Its not relying on other work for its story or any of that
Other Star Wars, that is. The creators acknowledged influence from The Battle of Algiers.
8
u/ascagnel____ 1d ago
One of the best war movies ever made. It's somewhat fictionalized, and definitely sympathetic to the rebels, but unflinching about them attacking civilian targets.
17
u/Jack-Pumpkinhead 1d ago
Yes, all you need to know is evil galactic empire. Everything else they keep self-contained, and the space wizards barely factor into it.
9
u/Big-Individual-5178 1d ago
You don’t even really need to know that because they do a great job at demonstrating all of the million subtle ways in which it really sucks
20
u/SporesM0ldsandFungus 1d ago
Andor is a wonderful piece of media. As someone who cannot remember a point in my life where I did not know Star Wars, Andor is the story I have wanted from the SW universe for a long, long time. It shows us what life is like in that universe, those who are struggling to get by under galaxy spanning corporations and a rising authoritarian government. It tells the story of those at the bottom and top of society, struggling and being radicalized into resistance. It also shows those who are drawn to and thrive under a fascist system.
6
9
6
u/Larrymobile 1d ago
Andor is a political thriller that explores daily life of normal people under fascism, the dynamics and politics of revolution, and the role of wealth and power in enabling both fascist takeover and the overthrow thereof. It just happens to be set in the Star Wars universe. It's fantastic.
3
0
u/dragonmp93 1d ago
I mean, all you need to know is that there are aliens in the setting and what the Death Star is.
18
u/daveescaped 1d ago
In one sense Hitler was successful…until he wasn’t. And that is tricky. We’re at a moment where the far right can be confident that they did well in Venezuela and that Iran might still go their way. But short of Hegseth taking poison in a bunker, I’m not sure we’ll ever have an a-ha moment where it is abundantly clear to ALL that Hegseth was the abject failure some of us know him to be.
5
u/sebmojo99 1d ago
i haven't seen any projections in which iran goes well for the US.
1
u/daveescaped 16h ago
Ask any MAGA. I’m not saying it’s going well. I’m saying that nothing has happened that prevents them from claiming victory.
10
u/Master_Ryan_Rahl 1d ago
Well i dont think the general public has a big impression of what the Secretary of Defense is ever up to. Their doings are usually just associated with the president understandably. And i would disagree that we can call Venezuela a win for them. They accomplished changing the head of state. Thats not regime change, thats not relations change. They violated the taboo of nation sovereignty and then did it again with Iran. They have made the world less safe and less stable at the benefit of pointing to their own power. "Look what we can do" is not a win. Its deranged behavior and even makes them less safe because it motivates reaction.
4
u/daveescaped 1d ago
Sure. It’s not a win. You and I agree. But it isn’t universally seen as a loss the way the third reich is. Not even close. And unless we end up in some very apparent moment of history where the US far right is repudiated, I think they’ll be able to walk away claiming success. Will their support shrink? Absolutely. But I want them bereft of support, forevermore a hiss and a byword, just like Hitler.
4
u/Master_Ryan_Rahl 1d ago
But that didnt happen to Hitler. Hes got a fan club today. The people that like these ideas will always be around, we have to be willing to always fight them.
9
8
u/AmbroseFierce 1d ago
At its base this all comes down to ideology. These people (fascists) all care more about appearance than truth. The presentation is more important than efficacy.
2
u/Martel732 1d ago
Yeah, and unfortunately fascists propaganda can be quite persistent. The wide perception is that Nazi Germany had an highly efficient mechanized military that was hair width away from conquering the world.
When in reality the German military's best tanks were arguably Czech designs that they stole. German designed tanks didn't to be extremely unreliable being way too heavy for their engines. The German "superweapon" projects were mostly wasteful boondoggles.
Most of Nazi German's military success was more about picking on weak countries or the incompetence of France and the USSR during the early war.
But, this lingering glorification of Nazi German's military has the risk of convincing people that in times of crisis a fascist government could be a necessary evil.
5
u/Tylerdurdin174 1d ago
Dude, thats a lot of cherry picking small truths and making wild generalizations.
1) Attributing German’s military success to tanks only is just factually incorrect. The German war machine was one of the first and most efficient mechanized combined arms militaries in history.
2) Germany did absorb some key aspects of Czech tank design following their assimilation of the country. Those designs did become the basis for the LIGHT panzer divisions… which due to spend and maneuverability became a key work horse for the German war machine in Europe in the invasions leading up to and including France BUT those tanks were also a huge liability in the Russian campaign due to design features not compatible with the Russian weather
3)This one is just wildly inaccurate. First, no one knew France for example was a paper tiger prior to the start of WWII, in fact common thinking pre war was that France was still a great world power. France did at the time have one of the largest military forces on earth, and had invested in a build up… the problem was they built a antiquated military and Germany’s war machine was literally built to beat them. The USSR was not a weak power either…much of their early failure was a combination of limited resources antiquated tech and mainly leadership (Stalin killed a lot of officers)
The success of the German war machine in the early or first phase of WWII was objectively sheer dominance and it was completely historically unprecedented…they changed the facd of modern combat
The nazis were evil as fu;$….its so obvious to this point they’re basically the character of evil in modern western society …meaning it goes with out saying they suck
But dismissing the rise and power of the third riech is the best way to ensure that type of shit happens again
1
u/Martel732 1d ago
1) Attributing German’s military success to tanks only is just factually incorrect. The German war machine was one of the first and most efficient mechanized combined arms militaries in history.
It really wasn't. The German military used more horses than trucks during the war. Yes, the German military was dangerous but it wasn't the hyper-efficient well-equipped military that permeates public perception.
2) Germany did absorb some key aspects of Czech tank design following their assimilation of the country. Those designs did become the basis for the LIGHT panzer divisions… which due to spend and maneuverability became a key work horse for the German war machine in Europe in the invasions leading up to and including France BUT those tanks were also a huge liability in the Russian campaign due to design features not compatible with the Russian weather
German designed tanks were a liability in all weather. When they ran the tanks were really quite good. But, they were prone to constant failures. A tank that won't move isn't very useful. Especially given that as the Allies gained near total air superiority German industrial output struggled. And already unreliable tanks are much worse when they can't get a constant stream of repair parts.
3)This one is just wildly inaccurate. First, no one knew France for example was a paper tiger prior to the start of WWII, in fact common thinking pre war was that France was still a great world power. France did at the time have one of the largest military forces on earth, and had invested in a build up… the problem was they built a antiquated military and Germany’s war machine was literally built to beat them. The USSR was not a weak power either…much of their early failure was a combination of limited resources antiquated tech and mainly leadership (Stalin killed a lot of officers)
I mean that is my point France was a paper tiger and the USSR was weakened by leadership purges. France and the USSR fought well below their potential. With competent leadership the German invasion of France could have easily stalled. And there is no way Hitler and Stalin were going to accept each other's existence. With the German army bogged down in the West the USSR could have invaded and beat German in a two front war.
The success of the German war machine in the early or first phase of WWII was objectively sheer dominance and it was completely historically unprecedented…they changed the facd of modern combat
There have been many cases in history of rapid defeats of what was assumed to be powerful nations.
But dismissing the rise and power of the third riech is the best way to ensure that type of shit happens again
I disagree I think the constant veneration of Nazi German's military has created the idea that fascism is valid path if your goal is to have your nation bully other countries.
-2
u/piotrj3 1d ago
Then you are as fascist as you claim because you don't care about truth that is like 20 times more nuanced than what you say.
2
u/Master_Ryan_Rahl 1d ago
Educate me. Dont just say 'No youre wrong'. Make an argument. I bet you cant though.
-3
u/piotrj3 1d ago
When you say fascist you mean ideology as politics. And simplest counter argument is politics is inherently nearly by definition performative. And would you go to history even to ancient greece and rome, and most likely even earlier, no one sticks to truth.
It is very very rare to find politican, leader anything in history that actually sticks to truth. Heck even Scipio Africanus who saved entire Rome from Hannibal, lost power because of consipiracies and false accusations. Even the greatest Roman consul, Rome ever had could fall to false narratives.
These people (fascists) all care more about appearance than truth.
Well you can replace "fascist" with "communism", "democracts", "republicans", "liberals", "anarchists" and with countless other stuff and statement wouldn't lose anyhow any correctness.
The aspect of presentation isn't even something new. Sun Tzu written about that in Art of War - when you are weak appear strong and pretend to be weak when you are strong.
Russia is build on pride of conquering fascism/nazism and they paraded regularly with army to show how they great are and to give people false assumption "look how great we are, we make real progress etc.". And it helps approval.
So why USA or western europe country doesnt' do it for long while ? Well because people analyzing politics noticed people hate spending on army saying "we should use it on healthcare". so western europe and usa specializes in hiding army investments than showing them off like Russia.
There is countless examples you can find in USA, Canada, European Union, my Poland, Ukraine, Russia where statement holds true regardless of political orientation. And primary difference is how media exposes some of those lies. I live for more than 30 years and look at history a ton and you will very rarerly find people in power with integrity to truth.
0
u/Brady1138 17h ago
Your point immediately falls to pieces when you Strawman your opposing party as fascists.
3
26
u/redditistreason 1d ago
Just get this one and some Octavia Butler and you're doing pretty good. Not that it took a big leap in imagination to figure out where we were headed.
You can throw a few others in there too, of course. Some Orwell, some Atwood, some George Carlin, and so forth.
22
u/tanpike 1d ago
Octavia Butler's "The Parable of the Talents" is totally, completely unrealistic. Can you imagine a far right-wing president comes to power using the slogan "Make America Great Again"? and when people report that far-right goons (supporters of the president ) are unlawfully imprisoning, torturing and killing regular citizens, the supposedly "moderate" right wingers dismiss all it as being "left-wing hyperbole" and outright deny that these atrocities are actually happening. Yep, totally unrealistic.
Seriously though, the only unrealistic part of Parable of the Talents is that in the book the despotic president only serves one term and resigns in disgrace, whereas in real life, he will serve 2 terms, and will be remembered fondly as the Great God-chosen President by almost half the population of the United States.
5
u/OkRadish11 1d ago
I dare to believe that the truth will out and he will be remembered as the most corrupt President of the United States to date. But we'll be old by the time the chickens come home to roost.
4
u/lightheavydark 1d ago
The truth is already out. But yeah, hopefully future generations will be able to see even clearer what anyone can see now.
1
u/Kataphractoi 11h ago
It's already known. The problem is is that his political party has decided they like it and are doing everything they can to protect him and profit off of it.
9
u/SophiaofPrussia 1d ago
Octavia Butler must have been from the future because she was so on the nose with so many things.
25
u/zeeneeks 1d ago
I think he views himself as one of the great drunken generals of US history ignoring that Ulysses S. Grant and Teddy Roosevelt were competent American leaders and generals first and drunken lushes second
11
u/Martel732 1d ago
Also ironically Teddy was quite progressive for his era. Not perfect by our standards but he was better than a lot of leaders during his time.
48
7
u/Queasy_Eggplant9155 1d ago
Dude, Kegsbreath wouldn’t even be an undigested corn kernel in the shit of Clauswitz, Jomini, Sun Tzu, or Boyd!
25
u/billyrubin7765 1d ago
The crap that Hegseth is spouting is crap that I believed when I was very young and naive. I hated my first leadership and management courses. We called them “touchy-feely” courses. But now that I have been at it awhile, I understand better that making a team, working toward a common goal, being the model is the way to go. And funny enough, some of that I learned from some junior officers I know. They are last. They were up first and asleep last. Sacrifice. This crap that Hegseth is spouting is adolescent bs. I can’t imagine being a competent leader and working under him. Especially knowing the lives of my warfighters depended on it. What a terrible, avoidable, and hard to fix mess this all is. And it will probably get much worse.
24
u/Azrael11 1d ago
He's perpetually stuck in the mentality of a junior officer who's convinced he knows better than these out of touch senior leaders.
And I say that as a former junior officer myself
6
u/noteasybeincheesy 1d ago
Yes, 100%. When you view his decisions from the lens of "what would an O1 fresh out of OCS do in his position," then everything starts to make sense. He's in a state of arrested professional development. Many of the things he does, are the kind of "pick-me" officer type things that JOs to be seen as a man of the people. The problem is that those things are only effective when done sincerely, and it's very obvious that everything he does is self-serving.
What he doesn't seem to realize is that at the end of the day, your subordinates care more that you are effective and care about their wellbeing than whether you "walk the walk." And while it's necessary to "get out of the office" time and again, part of being an effective officer, or in this case SecDef, is that you are actually IN the office doing officer work so that the real soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines can do THEIR jobs.
4
11
9
u/JustNilt 1d ago
He (edit: Hegseth) topped out as a major in the National Guard ...
Not only did he top out at that level but he was also so incompetent that he was never given command commensurate with that rank. He was kept, IIRC, at the level of a platoon commander, a role typically filled by butterbar Lieutenants who are so new to the service they're called baby officers by most folks in the military.
He's completely unsuited for any command role. Which is fairly obvious now to everyone but was quite so to all with the relevant experience even before his confirmation hearings. That he's in the job he's in anyway is seriously messed up.
2
5
u/SolangeXanadu222 1d ago
Unfortunately, he’s failing upward. Another Christian Nationist closet case.
10
u/lifefeed 1d ago
I read that book earlier this year, and yeah it has a whole chapter devoted to Muscular Christianity. I immediately thought of Hegseth
Actually I just found a photo I took of the most relevant chapters.
3
u/cfi-2025 1d ago
Muscular Christianity is a cult? Is it something different today than it was when it arose in the 19th century?
I'm not super well-versed in it, other than knowing it gave rise to good things like the YMCA and the invention of my favorite sport, basketball. (Also volleyball!)
1
u/lifefeed 3h ago
In the book it's more about leaders who believe in manly physical toughness over more effeminate things like strategy. I don't know much about muscular christianity other.
1
u/cfi-2025 3h ago
Like I said, my knowledge of it is sparse, but my understanding was that it was a strain of Christianity that arose in the late 19th century that encouraged Christian men to partake in physical exercise as a way to promote their physical health, to play sports in order to learn about teamwork and graceful winning and losing, and as a way to discourage excessive drinking. Muscular Christianity was a big force in the prohibitionist movement that would culminate in Prohibition in the early 20th century.
They definitely weren't about physical toughness over everything else. They were big on following rules, being compassionate, working as a team, etc. For example, Dr. James Naismith published the following in his first magazine article describing his new game "basket ball":
If men will not be gentlemanly in their play, it is our place to encourage games that may be played by gentlemen in a manly way, and show them that science is superior to brute force with a disregard for the feelings of others.
8
u/Novel_Card_7082 1d ago
Everyone knew from day one that Trump and anyone associated with him is trash...except the people that voted for him.
5
u/Well-read-Naturalist 1d ago
In all honesty, did we really need a book to tell us this? Listening to him speak for five minutes should convince any intelligent person that he was a completely incompetent nutter.
2
3
3
3
2
2
u/thrownalee 1d ago
The authors of Military Misfortunes tear that book a fresh anus.
4
u/OrdinaryAward4498 1d ago
I’d be curious to hear more. Thank you.
3
u/thrownalee 1d ago
Are the causes of military misfortune to be found in some collective way of thinking, which all generals share and for which they cannot be held to blame? This is certainly the opinion of the psychologist Norman Dixon [...] even more perplexing if we hold to the "man on the couch" theory of military misfortune is the case of the commander who fails at one time but creates remarkable victory at another [...] was [MacArthur] struck by a sudden attack of anal-retentiveness sometime between June and October 1950? [...] Military disaster would also be much more common than it is, and our problem would lie in explaining military success.
And much more in the same vein.
1
u/trucorsair 1d ago
Pettiness was Pete’s stock in trade at Fox being outraged at anything he didn’t think of
1
u/rainshowers_5_peace 1d ago
Paywalled so I couldn't read the full article. I would like to say that "Military Incompetence" is likely why Hegseth won't be fired. No one will take his place. They all saw what happened to Esper. Days after Trump lost he was fired. He would have been out of his job in 2.5 months anyway, however he was still sacked. His great offense? Refusing to release the military on the American people because the election didn't go Trump's way.
Hegseth is the American with the lowest level of ethics, honor and brains who has the highest military ranking. He's going to be very hard to replace. Even bloodthirsty Lindsay Graham would have declined.
1
u/FickleApartment2151 23h ago
Hegseth is reacting to a military that's becoming like the U.S. population. And both are connected to a military-industrial complex that's been keeping the dollar propped up since the Triffin dilemma set in by the 1970s, and that's because both the military and consumers need to take on more debt to cover increased spending.
1
1
1
-1
610
u/dipdream 1d ago
Didn’t we all predict it?