Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

"Warring States" at the Pentagon: Why Trump May Fire Hegseth

Blog

"Warring States" at the Pentagon: Why Trump May Fire Hegseth
Blog

Blog

"Warring States" at the Pentagon: Why Trump May Fire Hegseth

2026-08-30 18:48 Last Updated At:18:48

The Art of War has an incisive passage on military leadership: "He who knows nothing of the affairs of the three armies, yet meddles in their administration, leaves his officers and men bewildered." In other words, a man who does not understand military affairs but insists on interfering will only confuse his own troops. The result is "throwing your own army into chaos and flinging victory away."

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has committed precisely this cardinal taboo of the art of war. The New York Times reported today that his ruthless purge of generals has left the military leadership riddled with holes and effectively headless. Relentless infighting has made the place "as chaotic as the seven warring states."

Hegseth's power games have left the Pentagon in chaos. A stalled Iran war and bad intel have Trump fed up — and his job on the line.

Hegseth's power games have left the Pentagon in chaos. A stalled Iran war and bad intel have Trump fed up — and his job on the line.

Earlier reports said the Pentagon was in a shambles, and with the war on Iran deadlocked, Trump is growing ever more displeased with him. His position is teetering, and the odds of his being fired are high. Politically, Boss Trump also needs a "scapegoat" ahead of the midterm elections. If so, "Heggy" should be the first choice.

Hegseth was originally nothing more than a TV pundit. He served in the military for a few years, but never rose beyond the middle-to-lower ranks, and his experience of managing an army was limited. It was purely because he caught Boss Trump's eye that he was transformed overnight into the defense secretary.

Had his EQ been high enough, he would have worked well with the senior generals upon taking office and consolidated his own position first. But arrogance is his true nature. After taking up the post, he made enemies on all sides within the Pentagon, squeezing out anyone who crossed him, and not even the senior generals were spared. At the same time, he carried out a wholesale purge of senior officials whose "ideology" differed from his own, and each one was hounded out in turn.

According to The New York Times, this grand purge left the military leadership in tatters. One key figure cut down was the Army chief of staff, General Randy George.

The veteran general commanded great respect and dared to defy the secretary's wishes, which rankled Hegseth deeply. In April this year, with one swift stroke of the blade, Hegseth fired him.

Hegseth then pushed out three generals qualified to succeed General George. In their place, he promoted his own confidant, his former senior military assistant Christopher LaNeve, to serve as acting Army chief of staff. But Congress opposes confirming him in the post, and Trump is noncommittal. The position remains in limbo to this day.

Another Pentagon heavyweight, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, had long been at odds with Hegseth. He was once seen as a contender for the defense secretary job himself, which invited his boss's suspicion. He too has quietly bowed out and is preparing to leave by the end of the year.

Driscoll and General George had been planning Army reforms together. With both men successively forced out, those plans have been shelved.

Key figures in the Department of Defense were sidelined by Hegseth. Chief of Staff General George (right) was fired, and Army Secretary Driscoll (left) resigned.

Key figures in the Department of Defense were sidelined by Hegseth. Chief of Staff General George (right) was fired, and Army Secretary Driscoll (left) resigned.

The New York Times reviewed recent Pentagon personnel changes and found a striking hollowing out at the top. When Hegseth first took charge, the military had ten four-star generals. Most recently, that number has been whittled down to just five.

With too few senior generals, the leadership of some special programs has sat vacant for months. The general responsible for US military affairs in Europe, Christopher Donahue, also retired in July, and no suitable successor has yet been found.

Hegseth has reduced the Pentagon to utter disorder. Trump, the very man who elevated him, has taken note and begun to bristle. The forced departure of Army Secretary Driscoll struck him as a particular shame.

Trump had always held Driscoll in high regard, once remarking that "those are the best guys." He thus takes a dim view of Hegseth sidelining capable people for the sake of a power struggle.

That is merely one of the "sins" in Trump's mind. He has voiced displeasure with Hegseth over several matters. First, at an internal meeting at Camp David earlier, he bluntly accused Hegseth in front of other members of the team of misleading him over missile stockpiles, causing him to misjudge the situation. For the boss, filing false reports on military intelligence is no minor offense. It has to be settled sooner or later.

Second, at a press conference, he pointed at Hegseth in front of everyone and said, "I think you were the first one to speak up and you said, let's do it." He was referring to the war against Iran. He gave no details, but the meaning was plain enough. Hegseth had egged him into starting the war, yet had no strategy to cope with the unfavorable situation that followed. The objectives were not met, and the war sank into stalemate instead. Hegseth must bear his share of responsibility for this "botched, unfinished mess."

Third, there is the recent scandal aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, where sailors somehow endured 250 days at sea in hellish conditions. The affair has disgraced the US military and given the Democrats ammunition to attack in Congress. That is deeply unfavorable for the midterm election campaign. Trump will, of course, put that bill on Hegseth's tab as well.

The South China Morning Post earlier reported, citing reliable sources on all sides, that Trump is considering replacing Hegseth, and his position is expected to be untenable. The likelihood of this happening is indeed high. As Zhao Minghao, a professor at the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, put it, cabinet reshuffles ahead of midterm elections are the norm, and "someone has to shoulder responsibility for the Iran war stalemate."

That someone, of course, will not be Trump himself. If he must find someone to carry the can, Hegseth is bound to be his first choice.

Lai Ting-yiu




What Say You?

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent beat the war drums on Monday. He launched what he billed as the "largest economic offensive in history" against Iran, and swiftly sanctioned a batch of companies. The display looked thoroughly intimidating.

But most foreign media see him as bluffing. The Economist calls the campaign "more bark than bite". One former US diplomat puts it bluntly: "The words are fierce, but the punch packs little force."

First sanctions hit small fry: "little punch", mere whack-a-mole.

First sanctions hit small fry: "little punch", mere whack-a-mole.

The mockery is not without grounds. The first wave of action has so far taken aim only at smaller firms. Commentators liken the move to a game of "whack-a-mole", since a fresh crop of rebranded companies is expected to pop up soon and keep working for Iran. Three concerns are holding Bessent back, including diplomatic relations and risks to the international financial system. He is unwilling to strike directly at the core corporate giants. If he carries on this way, truly "cutting off Iran's lifeline" will remain out of reach.

A Game of Whack-a-Mole

No sooner had Bessent lifted the curtain on the campaign than he moved against a group of companies and individuals suspected of doing business on Iran's behalf. Some have ties to the Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong. Singapore also saw two companies and two individuals placed on the list. Foreign media understand that, for now, the operation focuses on smaller buyers, logistics firms, shippers, intermediaries and shell companies. Large institutions and corporations are nowhere to be seen.

Foreign media describe America's opening strike as a game of "whack-a-mole". Once these companies are "whacked dead" by sanctions, a new batch of "entities" will immediately pop up under different signboards. They will take over crude oil deals, money transfers and the import-export channels for Iran.

Erica Downs, a senior research scholar at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy, points to some small local refineries in the Chinese Mainland as one example. These refineries operate entirely outside the US dollar system. Even if Washington sanctions them, there is no way to stop them from buying Iranian oil. Their transactions can run through small banks in the Chinese Mainland. There is no need to rely on the US dollar or enter the international financial system at all.

Bessent can hardly be blind to all this. He must know that dealing Iran a genuinely fatal blow would mean taking the knife to China's corporate giants and banks. Yet foreign media have so far seen no sign of him playing that trump card. Analysts say he has three concerns. First, China is bound to retaliate fiercely. As one former US diplomat puts it, Beijing would then go beyond threats on paper. It would hit back through critical minerals, trade and other arenas, throwing new variables into the US-China contest.

Second, sanctioning large Chinese banks plugged into the international system would pose risks to global finance. Before the campaign began, Bessent told reporters that America would first give the countries and companies concerned a chance to stop doing business with Iran. It would not immediately unleash "destructive financial sanctions". He even admitted with unusual candor: "Why would I blow up the financial system?" The remark makes one thing clear. He fears that turmoil in international finance would hurt America itself, so his strikes will never go "all out".

Above all, Bessent has to weigh one more fact. President Xi is due to visit the United States next month, the dearest wish of "Boss" Trump. He would never strike hard at a moment like this. Turning Beijing and Washington against each other would sour the mood for the "summit of the two heads of state".

Three concerns stay Bessent's hand; Iran's oil trade limps on.

Three concerns stay Bessent's hand; Iran's oil trade limps on.

The Economist mocks Bessent for waging this war with "more bark than bite". The jab smacks of seeing through the emperor's new clothes. Indeed, his first round of action has given the game away. The magazine therefore expects the countries and companies involved to "wait and see" rather than fall in line with Washington's demands right away. They will think again only when he "really bites".

This chimes neatly with the words of Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. "Trading partners will not take America's threats seriously," he says. Different voices, much the same tune.

Lai Ting-yiu

Recommended Articles