By John Catalinotto
September 8, 2026
The internal conflict that has been roiling the Pentagon since Pete Hegseth needed Vice President JD Vance’s vote to win appointment by 51-50 in the Senate to lead that department on Jan. 24, 2025, has spilled into the main corporate media. The conflict has focused on criticism of Hegseth’s incompetent leadership. So far those critical of Hegseth have been unable to unseat him.
This conflict is important for activists organizing against U.S. aggression worldwide, which right now is hottest in West Asia against Iran. Most essential is to analyze what the differences are among the different ruling-class factions involved in this conflict and to explore the possibility of intervening politically so as to obstruct U.S. aggression.
The following events have made headlines recently:
1. Pentagon investigators subjected “50 members of the U.S. military’s Joint Staff to polygraph tests over alleged leaks to journalists, including about how the Iran war has created a shortage of crucial munitions.” Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter, a retired top judge advocate general for the Navy from 2000 to 2002, said of the testing: “In my experience, it’s unprecedented.” (The New York Times, Sept. 4 )
2. The Pentagon has fired journalists at the U.S. military’s daily newspaper, Stars and Stripes, apparently for giving extensive coverage to the serious problems among personnel on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier group. Especially sensitive were the reports on the failure to get adequate supplies to the ship’s 5,000 personnel and regarding a spike in attempted suicides. The Pentagon’s attempt to censor this newspaper is an admission of weakness of the Pentagon leadership.
3. Hegseth has either fired or prevented the promotions of 80 generals and admirals without publicly explaining why. Among them are five of the 10 members holding the top positions in the military, including Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, and at least three senior officers forced out who had been viewed as potential successors to General George. There have been no replacements. An Aug. 25 Times article said Hegseth “has left the Army essentially rudderless.”
4. Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who voted to approve Hegseth for his Pentagon role in January 2025, recently called on the president to replace Hegseth.
Professional military
Since the Pentagon decided to eliminate conscription at the beginning of 1973 (while the U.S. occupation of Vietnam was winding down) under the Richard Nixon administration, those running the U.S. Armed Forces have made enormous changes, trying to create a professional military that would function effectively.
Since the end of World War II, the role of the U.S. military machine has been to police the planet to defend and expand the interests of the imperialist ruling class and especially that section of this ruling class directly connected to the United States. This is Hegseth’s stated goal. It also has been the likely goal of the top officers who Hegseth has pushed out or obstructed.
That is, both groups aim to improve U.S. war readiness. If we examine the differences between Hegseth and the officers he has targeted regarding the diverse character of the U.S. military, this is what shows up:
In 1973 about 99% of the flag officers (generals and admirals) were white men, even though 10% of the enlisted ranks were African American. Today’s military is 48% people of color, including about 20% African American. It is 20% women. Gay and lesbian personnel are now allowed to enlist.
The increased diversity does not automatically lead to equal treatment any more than it does in civilian U.S. society. Even after procedures were adopted allegedly to improve opportunities for promotion of groups facing discrimination, still only 6.5% of the flag officers were Black as of 2024. Only 8% were women. Both numbers are less than half the proportion of enlisted personnel in those categories.
Hegseth represents the racism, misogyny and xenophobic positions of his commander in chief and the MAGA group overall. He openly aims to reduce the already limited opportunities for women and personnel of color to advance by eliminating any programs he calls “woke,” which means any steps aimed at lowering the impact of racist or sexist discrimination.
Regarding his firings, a disproportionate number of officers pushed out or denied promotion were women or officers of color (or both), along with any officers he considered “woke.”
This is only one of the differences Hegseth brings to the Pentagon. Other differences include blowing up fishing boats in the Caribbean Sea without any evidence of crime and attacking civilian infrastructure and the civilian population of Iran — which are both war crimes — and boasting about it. Not to mention urging soldiers to increase their testosterone levels.
Can this conflict open a struggle?
While those in conflict with Hegseth within the military or Congress might point out his lack of experience running any organization, let alone one with a $1.5 trillion budget and more than two million personnel, and the absence of any redeeming qualities for Hegseth beyond the ability to do pushups, their goals are mainly to strengthen the U.S. Armed Forces (and at best to oust the MAGA regime).
However, it is hard to see how they can dislodge Hegseth without exposing his open misogyny and racism and encouraging the rank-and-file personnel to participate in the struggle. Otherwise they will likely lose.
Most officials in the military, the Congress and the corporate media will do their best to avoid awakening a mass struggle. But once the genie is out of the bottle — it stays out. That’s the kind of opening the antiwar movement should be alert to.
