The US War Secretary Hegseth is finally in the spotlight, but with fame comes headaches. He was set to give a speech to 800 generals, only for President Trump to show up last minute and steal the show. Anyway, Hegseth started off as a nobody, but now he’s got tons of attention; many say he was caught off guard by the sudden fame.
The McNamara Comparison: Not Just Military, But Political Trust
Let’s talk about an American icon: McNamara. In 1943, he joined the US Army Air Corps as a math whiz, rising to captain. His job? Using statistical models to make air force bombing more effective. Post-war, he joined Ford, revamped their management, and by 45, became Ford’s president—second only to Henry Ford II. In 1961, Kennedy tapped him to be Secretary of Defense. Hegseth? He’s been in various wars, earned medals like the Bronze Star, served as an Afghanistan instructor in 2012, moving up to major.
Here’s the thing: as Defense Secretaries, Hegseth and McNamara had similar military creds. Critics say Hegseth’s just a junior officer and can’t be preaching to star generals. But back in 1965, General Westmoreland, the top Vietnam commander, had to report to McNamara. Big military moves had to get Johnson’s nod. So why bash Hegseth but not McNamara? Both started low in rank—what really matters is presidential trust. Without that, no one’s fit for the job.
Kennedy’s “Best and Brightest” — Then and Now
Speaking of McNamara, let’s not forget Kennedy. At 43, he was America’s youngest president ever, seeing himself as a fresh, new-gen leader. His cabinet was full of America’s brightest young minds, called “The Best and the Brightest.” In his inaugural, Kennedy said, “The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans” to lead the nation onward. He promised a “New Frontier”: ending segregation, reforming civil rights, pursuing peace, and taking humanity to space.
McNamara was the poster boy for Kennedy’s “Best and Brightest.” Plus, he held a Harvard MBA and made major WWII contributions, earning his spot among the “Blue Blood Ten,” America’s academic elite. Today, President Trump, a famous TV host by background, probably thinks Hegseth deserves a spot among the Best and Brightest too—he’s one of America’s top TV personalities.
The Flaws of the “Best and Brightest”
But here’s what you can question—the actual capability of America’s “Best and Brightest.” McNamara made grave strategic missteps in Vietnam, known in management circles as the “McNamara Fallacy.” This was his obsession with relying solely on quantitative data, which led to serious errors. He backed Westmoreland’s “carpet bombing” strategy—using B-52 Stratofortress bombers to relentlessly bomb North Vietnam. The flaw? Viet Cong often evacuated before strikes. McNamara still supported it, saying the goal wasn’t necessarily to destroy targets but to psychologically intimidate the enemy. The result? A humiliating US withdrawal after a decade.
So far, no “Hegseth Fallacy” has popped up, but calling Hegseth “The Best and the Brightest” feels off. It reminds me of the Western classic, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Not that Hegseth has Clint Eastwood’s style, but more like two of the three character types in that film—the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Deep Blue
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
At the United Nations Climate Change Summit on September 24, President Xi Jinping made a significant announcement via video address. He declared that "China will, by 2035, reduce economy-wide net greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent to 10 percent from peak levels, striving to do better".
More importantly, Xi highlighted the undeniable global trend: "Green and low-carbon transition is the trend of the time. While some country is acting against it, the international community should stay focused on the right direction, remain unwavering in confidence, unremitting in actions and unrelenting in intensity, and push for formulation and delivery on NDCs, with a view to providing more positive energy to the cooperation on global climate governance."
Predictably, Xi's thinly veiled jab at the United States didn't sit well in the West, and their discomfort goes far beyond just the climate issue. The Associated Press quickly wheeled out former Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, who commented, "China’s latest climate target is too timid given the country’s extraordinary record on clean energy…China must go further and faster" Germany's Deutsche Welle seized on this, running a piece titled "China Announces Specific Emission Reduction Targets for the First Time, Analysis Suggests They Are Lower Than Expected" to try and corner Beijing.
Trump's Delusions and Western Deflections
Meanwhile, The New York Times gave a straightforward account of Trump's ludicrous speech, noting: "Trump spent roughly a quarter of his address railing against concerns about global warming. He claimed the scientific consensus on the issue was ‘made by stupid people’." Trump even doubled down, branding climate change as "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world".
It would be a genuine tragedy if no one at the UN bothered to call out Trump's nonsense. Deutsche Welle did cite expert opinions critical of the United States, and Reuters interviewed American scholars who pointed out the obvious: "Trump wants fossil fuels and the United States is indeed a powerful petro-state... But letting China become the world’s sole powerful electro-state is the opposite of making America great again … at least if you care about the future."
Of course, Deutsche Welle couldn't resist taking another shot at China, running a report that highlighted the country's continued heavy reliance on coal. Citing a 2024 Global Energy Monitor report, the article pointed out that China's ongoing coal mine development projects represent more than half of the global total, and that its existing large-scale mines have an annual production capacity approaching half of the world's output.
The piece then conveniently referenced a Guardian interview with Paul Bledsoe, a Clinton-era White House climate advisor, who argued that China's energy economy was not progressing quickly enough and insisted that the country needed to commit to closing many of its old coal mining areas.
Germany's Glass House
Deutsche Welle may try to appear "objective" by citing various sources, but a quick look reveals a clear bias. You could easily mistake it for a pro-Trump piece. And this brings us to the irony of it all: Weren’t the Germans supposed to be the eco-conscious ones?
Let’s not forget a 2023 report from Germany’s own climate advisors and the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), which admitted that “German goals to cut greenhouse emissions by 65% by 2030 are likely to be missed”, putting its 2045 net-zero goal in serious jeopardy. The reason? A simple overestimation of its reduction capacity. And the excuse? Blaming "overcapacity" in China's new energy sector for disrupting Europe's market. The list of excuses goes on.
And that, my friend, brings us back to the question. Weren’t the Germans supposed to be the eco-conscious ones instead?
A final touch on the subject: the 2015 Paris Agreement saw 194 parties commit to limiting the global average temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, while aiming for 1.5°C.
China's Commitment Shines Through
As President Xi stated at the UN, "These targets represent China’s best efforts based on the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Meeting these targets requires both painstaking efforts by China itself and a supportive and open international environment."
He stressed, "We have the resolve and confidence to deliver on our commitments…Let’s all step up our actions to realize the beautiful vision of harmony between man and nature, and preserve planet Earth—the place we call home."
With China demonstrating such commitment as a major power, Germany shouldn’t have any reason for despair. Side with China, not Trump’s America, and the sky’s the limit.
