Of course, that’s hardly all he said. The basic thrust of the speech was to turn back the clock to the time before Obama’s Hope and Change and Wokeness transformed the military (at least, the Obama years are when I noticed the change). I would guess plenty of those assembled were happy about what they heard, and plenty were not; I couldn’t even begin to say what the proportion of each group might be.
More:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed the military’s top generals and admirals ahead of Trump, rolling out a 10-point plan to overhaul the culture of the military.
At the unprecedented meeting that pulled leaders from posts around the globe, he announced a shift to a merit-based culture with a return to “the highest male standard only.” And Hegseth emphasized the need to stick to strict fitness standards, calling it “completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon leading commands around the country and the world.”
Hegseth said a lot more about that male/female thing. Here’s his actual speech; it’s worth looking at. For example, he mentions 2015 (which is during Obama’s term) as being one turning point in that regard:
I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in combat unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men, or troops who are not fully proficient on their assigned weapons platform or task or under a leader who was the first but not the best. Standards must be uniform, gender neutral and high. If not, they’re not standards. They’re just suggestions, suggestions that get our sons and daughters killed. …
Today, at my direction, each service will ensure that every requirement for every combat MOS, for every designated combat arms position returns to the highest male standard only. Because this job is life or death. …
Any place where tried and true physical standards were altered, especially since 2015 when combat arms standards were changed to ensure females could qualify, must be returned to their original standard. Other standards have been manipulated to hit racial quotas as well, which is just as unacceptable. This too must end; merit only. …
Because war does not care if you’re a man or a woman. Neither does the enemy, nor does the weight of your rucksack, the size of an artillery round or the body weight of a casualty on the battlefield who must be carried. This — and I want to be very clear about this. This is not about preventing women from serving. We very much value the impact of female troops. Our female officers and NCOs are the absolute best in the world.
Seems completely reasonable to me. But the left always counts on the idea that you can’t turn back the clock. They believe once the Overton Window has shifted, the public accepts the new standard as the way it should be.
As for those fat generals, Hegseth said:
Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops. Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are.
So, whether you’re an airborne Ranger or a chairborne Ranger, a brand new private or a four star general, you need to meet the height and weight standards and pass your PT test. And as the chairman said, yes, there is no PT test. But today, at my direction, every member of the joint force at every rank is required to take a PT test twice a year, as well as meet height and weight requirements twice a year every year of service.
It sounds a bit as though, with the generals in particular, this is about esthetics. I also wonder where they draw the line at “fat.” As people get older, it can get more difficult to be really slim, and if a slightly overweight general is brilliant, do we want him on a starvation diet to meet the standard?
I asked Google “were there any fat US generals in World War II?”, and its AI replied, helpfully (and I assume factually?):
Based on historical accounts, photographs, and the health standards of the time, there were no notably overweight or “fat” U.S. generals during World War II. However, it is important to remember that physical standards and perceptions of weight were very different in the 1940s compared to today.
Reasons why U.S. generals in WWII were typically not overweight:
Rigorous physical standards: While enlistment standards for average soldiers had some flexibility for those who could correct their weight through training, military leaders faced intense pressure to maintain peak physical condition. Many of the top generals were lifelong military officers who had been shaped by a culture that valued athleticism and physical fitness. For example, General George S. Patton was a dedicated athlete who competed in the 1912 Summer Olympics.
Operational demands: Generals commanding troops in the field often faced demanding conditions that would make significant weight gain difficult.
Wartime stress and lifestyle: The intense stress, long hours, and constant movement involved in commanding a war effort contributed to a lean physique for many senior officers.
Medical standards: Unlike today’s strict body fat standards, the regulations of the era were primarily concerned with ensuring weight did not interfere with a soldier’s physical activities and proper training. The average American soldier in WWII was also much leaner than modern soldiers, weighing around 144 pounds and standing 5’8″ tall.
One reason people were thinner then: smoking was very common. Of course, there were other reasons, but that’s one difference people don’t often mention.
So expecting generals to be lean is another case of turning back the clock. Of course, the rules don’t apply to commander-in-chief Trump, who’s not a member of the military.
