The Experts Were Wrong About Pete Hegseth

Remember all the criticisms Pete Hegseth endured as his nomination to head the Pentagon proceeded? Besides the gratuitous personal attacks, many so-called defense experts pronounced Hegseth unqualified for the job. Liberal National Public Radio reported that Hegseth’s nomination for secretary of defense was being met “with disbelief and outrage among some members of Congress and former military officers.” “If confirmed,” NPR said, Hegseth “would be the least experienced defense secretary in the history of the republic.” The New York Times called his selection to head the Pentagon “deeply troubling.”

Nearly a year later, War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon is two-for-two in the limited but complex military operations undertaken against Iran and Venezuela. Put aside for a moment the questions of geopolitical necessity and the policy implications of the strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and the capture of Maduro in Venezuela, and focus on the competence of our military when used correctly by our civilian leaders.

In Iran, the U.S. military successfully acted with Israel to destroy — at least for the time being — Iran’s capability to construct and deploy nuclear weapons. By doing so, the U.S. seriously set back Iran’s nuclear weapons project and helped remove a threat to all of our allies in the region and, as recent events show, greatly weakened the Islamic regime’s hold on power, without committing our forces to another endless war in the region.

In Venezuela, our military, intelligence, and law enforcement forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who had been indicted by a federal grand jury in New York on terrorism, drug, and gun charges. The Pentagon’s role in the Maduro operation is reminiscent of its role in the capture of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega in January 1990, who, like Maduro, had been indicted on drug trafficking charges (and later convicted).