Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ceremoniously announced the termination of the Department of Defense’s Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) program. In Hegseth’s words, the program strayed from the only goal of the military: ‘WAR-FIGHTING.’ The Secretary has been vocal about his disapproval of those imbued with globalism and Marxist beliefs identifying the Pentagon as their home base.
Hegseth appeared to conveniently omit that the WPS program was not a brainchild of the current Biden-Harris administration. Instead, it was a fruit borne of practical bipartisan politics from both Republicans and Democrats, a rare sighting indeed in our times. To the surprise of many, the program was enacted by none other than former President Donald Trump in 2017 under the banner of the Women, Peace, and Security Act.
The Women, Peace, and Security Act placed a particular emphasis on the active participation of women in conflict prevention measures as well as resolution methods. The Act argued that such initiatives foster wider democratic societies, becoming a significant catalyst for long-lasting stability across countries and regions—a sentiment echoed more by wishful establishment theorists than by actual troops on the ground.
As part of legislation, this Act propagated the need for increased female involvement in critical aspects of managing foreign conflict situations, not only during the conflict but also in post-conflict relief and recovery operations on the ground. It was designed to be bolstered via diplomatic missions and programs—an overreach, in Hegseth’s view, from the actual mission of the military.
This Act, although sham-wrapped in benevolent wording, found universal endorsement amongst the members of Congress. Even members of Trump’s own Cabinet, whom, it could be argued, weren’t entirely immune from liberal globalist perspectives, offered their sponsorship and approval. Yet, this did not deter Hegseth from voicing his aversion toward it.
Hegseth assertively condemned the Act enacted by his predecessor, asserting that it was nothing more than an albatross around the necks of our commanders and troops—an unnecessary weight for those who operate in the harsh realities of war-fighting, moving away from political hoo-hah and diplomatic theatrics.
His sentiments were unambiguous: ‘WPS is a UNITED NATIONS program pushed by left-wing activists and their feminist cohort.’ The very idea that the ivory tower politicians and academics applauding the program had a better understanding of the needs of the military than those actually serving was laughably misguided, in Hegseth’s opinion.
He made it clear: the Department of Defense, under his watch, would do the bare minimum required to placate politicians and fulfill the requirements of the WPS program. A stance that was both practical and rooted in real-world understanding of war-fighting.
During his confirmation process, Hegseth made headlines for a completely different reason. He faced criticism and allegations of wanting to marginalize the role of women in combat duties within the military—an accusation that was more reflective of a fearmongering political opposition than of his actual views.
The controversies did not deter Hegseth, and today he stands as our Secretary of Defense. His term has been characterized by a practical perspective of what it means to be in the armed forces, devoid of politically correct inclusivity manoeuvres.
Among some of the noticeable changes under Hegseth’s leadership has been a tactical retreat from symbolic gestures in the Department of Defense. Like an experienced commander, he’s led from the front, repelling attempts to inject political correctness into the military. A refreshing change that realists in the military appreciate.
While Biden and Harris may quietly endorse the politically correct course, wartime is not a platform for virtue signaling. Hegseth recognized this and has acted accordingly, aiming to keep the main purpose of the military in focus: war-fighting.
Opponents argue that Hegseth has ‘erased’ mentions of women and minorities from the Department of Defense’s online presence. But why should the military, an institution designed for national defense, have to cater to political correctness or the latest ‘woke’ trend? Hegseth is clear on that front: it doesn’t, and it won’t.
The question remains whether Biden and Harris will continue to push for the glorified United Nations’ programs or whether they would start considering the practicality and seriousness of the warfare situation, which Hegseth seems to have grasped astutely. Will they risk burdening the actual war-fighters for the sake of their ‘globalist agenda’?
While it is clear as daylight that Hegseth’s term will be criticized by many, those criticisms reflect more on the political leanings of the critics than on Hegseth’s leadership. Hegseth respects the actual soldiers, the war-fighters who lay their lives on the line, not politicians sitting comfortably in ivory towers or academics dreaming about an idealistic world.
Hegseth’s actions signal a return to realism and seriousness in the Department of Defense, away from the politically correct, ‘woke’ ideals permeating other branches of the Biden-Harris administration. It is a reminder that when it comes to national defense, war-fighting should and will remain the priority, regardless of political rhetoric.