Trump defense chief 'checks all the boxes' for 'military incompetence': psychologist

President Donald Trump speaks next to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., April 10, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's bombastic and bloodthirsty rhetoric surrounding the war in Iran is sowing the seeds of "radical change" for the U.S. military, but according to a new analysis from Bloomberg, the approach contains all the hallmarks of military "incompetence" and could lead to "disaster," citing the warnings of a famed psychologist.

Writing for the outlet on Tuesday, military affairs columnist Tobin Harshaw warned that Hegseth's rhetoric should not be written off "as mere rhetoric," given his stated ambition to "reform" the military "for generations to come."

"Count me skeptical: Revolutions in training, equipment, tactics, personnel and organization occur over the long haul," Harshaw wrote. "The force that he and President Donald Trump have unleashed on Iran was forged decades ago, beginning with the post-Vietnam war reforms of the 1970s and President Ronald Reagan’s defense buildup of the ’80s. But Hegseth may be planting the seed for a radical change in one aspect of military behavior that doesn’t get enough attention: psychology. Broadly, armed forces take on a mentality shaped by their leaders. My concern is that the wrong one can lead to disaster."

Much of Harshaw's argument hinged on the writings of Norman F. Dixon, a British military veteran and psychologist, famed for his 1976 study titled. “On the Psychology of Military Incompetence." According to Harshaw, Dixon's writings ultimately warned that "military incompetence" emerged from two key failings: the belief that power trumps intelligence, and that education and intellectual rigor were "bad form."

It is that latter point about anti-intellectualism that Harshaw argued was prevalent within Hegseth's approach to reforming the U.S. military.

"For the second, there is Dixon’s warning about a 'cult of anti-intellectualism' — which brings us back to Hegseth’s most recent cultural jihad," he wrote. "For decades, the Pentagon has sent promising junior officers to elite universities to obtain graduate degrees, a practice the secretary banned last month on the grounds that they returned with 'heads full of globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks.'"

Harshaw further highlighted several traits which Dixon linked to the spread of military incompetence, all of which, he argued, Hegseth "checks all the boxes" for: An equation of war with sport; resentment toward the inquisitiveness of war correspondents and the public about naval or military affairs; a cult of “anti-effeminacy”; “love of the frontal assault” and “natural distaste for defensive responses”; an obsession with “muscular Christianity”; and, an imperviousness to loss of life.

"Warfare has at its heart the paradox of waging both war and peace," Harshaw concluded. "This is why Dixon suggests that 'a tight rein on aggression is mandatory in a profession whose stock in trade and solution to most problems is physical violence.' Hegseth’s military will have no problem with aggression. The question is, will anybody be holding the reins?"

From Your Site Articles