Much has already been said about Hegseth’s “State of the Force” speech this week. The “no fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps” bit is getting the lion’s share of the attention. But two other things struck me.

First, in a speech on the state of the US armed forces, there was nothing of substance about a currently ongoing war that involves (checks notes) the US armed forces. So, to the transcript I went and deployed ye olde ctrl-f to find the following.

The word, or a variation thereof, appears a whopping seven times, most of them starting at the 8:17 mark.

Take Iran, for example. Allow me to lay it out simply for the anti-American losers in our media. These Americans right here and their peers, these, have destroyed Iran’s Navy, destroyed Iran’s Air Force, destroyed their air defense systems, their leadership and their military industrial capacity, their entire defense base. Iran’s conventional shield has been crippled and their nuclear ambitions laid bare for the world. You, this group, are ensuring that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, courageous and historic operations that every red-blooded American is proud of.

But as you know, the information space, it’s a battle space, yet our so-called press makes Iranian state media look reasonable. 

But wait, there’s more! (17:22 mark):

from Midnight Hammer to Epic Fury, Iran will never ever have a nuclear weapon.

All of this is warmed-over administration talking points to include an attack on the American press.

There is nothing new here.

How many mentions of the Strait of Hormuz?

The Houthis?

Zero in both counts.

Nor are there references to damage to military bases in the region, nor to any of our regional partners.

The only mention of munitions shortages was to again attack the press.

This is all an irresponsible and profoundly unserious approach to the state of the armed forces. Indeed, the war itself, its effects on the troops, our bases, and our general ability to project force are all very, very important topics.

We are currently losing a war in epic fashion, and it barely gets a mention.

There isn’t even an attempt at new spin or the deployment of new lies!

But if it makes anyone feel better, he did use the word “warriors” 15 times and lethal/lethality six times!

Indeed, it is quite clear that Hegseth is far more interested in culture wars than he is in actual wars.

To that point, the second thing that continues to leap out at me is the Christian nationalism of it all. Part of it, as I noted in the comments on James’ post the other day, is that his cadence and delivery remind me very much of a mega-church pastor. But that is just a stylistic observation. More important than how he said it is what he said; he clearly wishes to use his position to promote his own vision of Christianity onto the department and the broader nation.

And while some of the following, if taken in isolation, might not mean much, I think it matters to note that there is not simply a speech about how Hegseth views the spiritual health, as he sees it, of the troops. I mean, sure, even the most secular person might cite the Golden Rule, or even take poetic license to deploy a religious text, but Hegseth is doing far more than just that here.

A significant percentage of the speech promotes religion or deploys religious language. While some instances might be dismissed as either sufficiently generic or simply personal to Hegseth, there is a clear agenda here.

Probably the key passage is this:

As Psalm 33:12 extols us, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” 250 years ago, we rejected an earthly king an ocean away, appealing instead to a heavenly king above. George Washington made sure that the continental army had chaplains back at the beginning, back in 1775. That force appealed to heaven, and we still do today. Our national motto is, after all, “In God we trust.” Today we reaffirm that trust. We’re placing spiritual health at the same level as physical health. Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God. Because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual.

This is not some generic appeal to the general spiritual well-being of the troops. He is quoting the Old Testament, but in a clearly Evangelical Christian way. The “full armor of God” is a reference to a key New Testament passage.

Specifically, the bolded portion is a purely Christian nationalist claim. He is linking the American Revolution as being a turn from King George to King Jesus. He is even pouring very specific meaning into the motto, “In God We Trust.”

Note also the two references to an “appeal to heaven.” See this AP story for more context: The ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flag evolves from Revolutionary War symbol to banner of the far right.

And keep in mind he is linking all of this to the military specifically.

Indeed, he continues.

God is good, evil is not, and America’s military must understand the difference. To our incredible chaplains and religious support teams, live your calling, stand firm, preach truth, minister to the flock, fear no man. Or as the psalmist put it, “The Lord is on my side. I will not fear. What can man do unto me?” Amen to that.

I ask students of history what good can come of a military that thinks God is on their side? There is also the fact that the military is supposed to swear fealty to the Constitution, not to God.

Oh, the irony for the party currently trying to scare us about Sharia law is that it is overtly trying to Christianize our government.

Each of us committed to the nation with the sentiment of the sixth chapter of the book of Isaiah. Lord, here I am, send me. Send me to fight the Red Coats. Send me to fight the communists. Send me to fight the Islamists. Send me.

Not only is the phrase “send me” a popular one in Evangelical circles, but it is one used in a popular worship song of the type popular in the kinds of churches Hegseth attends. It seems worth noting that the passage in Isaiah is about a prophet being sent to a domestic audience and the mission is one of judgement. And while that may be a coincidence, it may not be.

So when he talks about a new Office of Religious Affairs, I find it quite concerning.

Today at my direction, I’m establishing the Office of Religious Affairs. Starting today and for secretaries of war after me, the Office of Religious Affairs will report straight to the top. No staff filters, no bureaucratic dilution, a direct line to the secretary.

This is not going to be a paper pushing shop. It’s going to have real teeth. It’ll protect budgets, demand infrastructure and strengthen religious support. The experts, our chaplains, will finally have an advocate at the highest levels. Policy and resources will serve the mission, not smother the mission.

I would note that the above is the preamble to the key passage I cite above that overtly links this new office to a Christian nationalist vision of America.

Again, this does not sound like simply concern for the spiritual health of the troops, or providing religious community. It sounds very much like a tool for extolling and engraining specific views of religion into the military superstructure.

For people of faith, that community isn’t just a nice to have. In many ways, it’s an extension of their family, it’s their moral foundation or their personal and spiritual accountability, the very bedrock of their warrior ethos. When you actually look at the numbers, and this will be good for the press, less than 5% of our force identifies as non-religious, less than 5%, meaning 95% of our force recognizes an almighty God. Accordingly, our department therefore has a sacred duty, first class religious support wherever we send our warriors.

Not only does this sound dismissive of the non-religious, but it also makes the 95% sound far more homogeneous than it is. The language of his speech demonstrates that he is not thinking generically about “religion” or “religious people.” The God in “In God We Trust” is a very specific one. Remember the previous reclassification of religions in the DoD, which originally placed Mormons in a non-Christian category. If one goes back to those stories, one sees the diminution of minority faiths and the clear elevation of Christianity. It is as plain as day, even if it just seems like bureaucratic tinkering if one notices it in passing.

One does not invite Doug Wilson to speak if one has an inclusive view of religion.

Why does all of this matter?

First, all of this goes against the core value enshrined in the First Amendment: the separation of church and state. It is unconstitutional to place one religion ahead of others. Hegseth clearly has preferences and is using his power to help that which he prefers.

Second, I will again note that our troops swear to support and defend the Constitution, not God.

Third, as noted above, linking militaries to religion is simply dangerous. The combination of guns and divine truth is a dangerous cocktail.

Fourth, none of this is happening in a vacuum. This is part of an administration that is actively pursuing an ideological program of “us v. them” and is being supported by fellow-travelers increasingly concerned about “replacement” of the white (Christian) population.

No doubt the following is just a coincidence (as reported by the BBC): How white South Africans became the face of Trump’s refugee policy.

In the last year, the US has admitted just 13,000 refugees — a fraction of the number it has accepted in previous years. And almost all of those new arrivals have been white South Africans.

For example, via TPM: Chris Rufo — Known For ‘DEI’ and ‘CRT’ Panics — Tries to Make ‘the Indian Question’ a Thing.

As TPM’s Josh Kovensky noted, French’s tweet — an articulation of the white supremacist “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory — roiled the right, eliciting some rare, if tepid, denunciations from prominent Republican officials in Texas, and exposing faultlines in the GOP’s coalition over the exact boundaries of MAGA’s ethnonationalism. Are some non-white ethnicities more allowed than others? Are some immigrant groups more prone to being “assimilated” into white, Christian culture? 

Keeperman and Rufo’s “Indian Question” episode amounts to an hour-long defense of French’s post. Keeperman offered a tortured tautology about why the south Asian college kids cheering a comeback victory for the Longhorns — some of whom were wearing cowboy hats and throwing up the “Hook ‘em Horns” hand sign — were not properly “assimilated” into American culture: because he said so.

And then there is stuff like this:

See this BlueSky thread by historian Seth Cotlar who explains the term in detail.

Plus, see my note below about Western Civilization.

The politics of us v. them means that some people’s rights and lives are respected, while others’ aren’t. This becomes heightened when religion comes into play, as then it becomes a game of not just us and them, but of right and wrong or good and evil. Throw in guns and the coercive power of the state, and the “good” guys start rounding up, and likely killing, the “bad guys.” This is not a hypothetical. And even when violence is not deployed, in a democracy some citizens should not be more equal than others.

Abandoning the core of liberal equality for illiberal dichotomies is a road paved to Hell.

Let me conclude by again noting that a speech underscores that Hegseth is leading the Department of Culture War, which is ultimately aimed at fighting domestic battles rather than a military focused on projecting power and protecting American interests. Yes, the speech gives up an offering on drones, but it is mostly a domestically-oriented set of policies.

---

Extra Examples

The following further illustrate my point, but did not fit well in the flow above.

1. Revival

You see this stuff, it’s not rocket science, but it is a revival. 

2. Jesus Hearts PT. This is perhaps the most anodyne reference in the speech, but it still goes to a weird place.

Jesus said, and you know it, “Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.” It is the simplest test of truth. Well, the new war department golden rule that we put into practice is this, do unto your unit as you as have done unto your own child’s unit. Would you want them serving in a unit where standards were lowered to meet quotas or a unit where leaders were promoted for reasons other than merit, performance or war fighting? The answer is not just no, the answer is hell no. We live this golden rule now and standards have responded accordingly.

The weird part is that it is used not as an affirmation that we should treat others as we would want to be treated (which would cause problems for Hegseth’s treatment of Blacks, women, and trans persons). Instead, this core Christian teaching is being deployed to argue against inclusion and for more PT. You know, when asked What Would Jesus Do? the answer is obviously push-ups and a run!

And that means for every combat MOS, none of this should be new to you because we’ve been doing this over the past year, we now have gender-neutral standards set at the highest male standard only because combat doesn’t care. That means for every combat MOS, we now have a combat field test again, set at the highest male standard only because combat doesn’t care.

That means two PT tests every year for every unit and the same for height and weight standards. And soon in every service for those PT tests, and I’m looking at the army guys here, guys and gals, it’s a PT test that can be done with only a stopwatch and a clipboard. Stay tuned. No more mobile gym needed. That means PT every duty day at every level from corporal to commandant. That means not treating combat arms and non-combat arms as the same thing, both very important, but not the same. And that means basic training is back to basic training, drill sergeants being drill sergeants. The same goes for how we pick senior leaders. We got rid of the DEI based social emotional evaluations known in the army as BCAP and CCAP, you won’t have to endure them. They were Milley and Austin specials intended to create politically correct quotas for race and gender. Under the guise of double-blind psychology assessments, the previous administration forced out so-called toxic leaders in favor of promoting risk averse toxic leaders in favor of promoting risk averse, get along to go along conformists. It was the true politicization of our military, stupid and dangerous. Instead, now we have instituted a performance-based joint war fighter evaluation. Every colonel who wants to be a general will have to pass and excel in a merit-based, performance-driven assessment of commander’s ability to solve complex military problems and win on the battlefield.

This certainly sounds like an apex goal in the era of drone warfare…

3. Western Civilization. The following, as cringey as it reads, might be dismissible in isolation. But there is a clear linkage with far-right politics, Christian nationalism, and “western civilization.”

God and country traded for Che Guevara and critical theory. What do we need? We need students of Western civilization and the pillars of our republic, leaders who understand the faith of Jerusalem, the philosophy of Athens, the power of Rome, and the freedom of Philadelphia, circa 1776.

For example, see this NYT piece: The Elite Conservatives Trying to Revive ‘Western Civilization’.

If you don’t believe the commies at the NYT, there are also the conservative Catholics at First Things: The Case for Christian Nationalism.

The doctrine of divine providence is not unique to Christianity. Most religions envision a greater power that guides and governs history. But the moral and political imagination of Western civilization has been shaped by Christianity. For this reason, Christian nationalism is the most likely source of political renewal that instills both humility and purpose. We need both in twenty-first-century America.

Or, see this piece from Foreign Affairs: The New Right’s Grand Strategy After Trump.