To state the obvious: As a former weekend host on Fox & Friends, an officer in the Army National Guard, and the leader of two small nonprofits, Pete Hegseth is not qualified to lead a nuclear-armed organization with a budget approaching a trillion dollars. That’s the point. Donald Trump doesn’t want anyone running the Pentagon effectively. he wants to disrupt it.

His choice of Mr. Hegseth stems from long-standing right-wing discontent over the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these frustrations are understandable, but the remedies Mr. Trump is proposing are dangerous. Its disregard for international rules could undermine the laws of war that emerged from the devastation of two world wars. His threats of territorial expansion could intensify a period of nationalist aggression. His tirades against enemies in the United States suggest social engineering by MAGA and domestic intervention by the Pentagon. In Mr. Hegseth, he has found a loyal vessel for this project, someone who could channel his mix of cheer and anger to fundamentally change the character of the military.

Nearly a decade ago, Mr. Trump announced his presidential campaign by warning that the United States was in trouble. “We don’t have any more victories,” he said. “We used to have victories, but we don’t have them.” He emerged from a right-wing media ecosystem that, after the September 11 attacks, was characterized by bellicose nationalism and the promise of great victories. George W. Bush committed the United States to “the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” Even as the wars began to go badly, Vice President Dick Cheney spoke of an Iraqi insurgency in its “final stages.” The people most conditioned to believe these promises were consumers of right-wing media, which increased their sense of betrayal when it became clear that they had been misled.

Mr. Hegseth experienced the wars personally and served in Iraq and Afghanistan. After initial defense after September. His 11-year policy saw him join many on the right in blaming domestic enemies for America’s failures abroad – a common result when superpowers fail to win wars. Like Mr. Trump, he focused on liberals and Islam, as well as the changing demographics and social mores that had crept into the military through the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, diversity initiatives and women in combat.

Meanwhile, many veterans who had served in bitter wars with unclear goals returned to communities struggling with deindustrialization and the financial crisis and disoriented by social change. Social media spread resentment and conspiracy theories, sapping the confidence of Bush-era triumphalism: We have no more victories.

Mr. Trump capitalized on this negative energy. He eschewed arguments about how the Iraq War could have been won, rightly arguing that it should never have been fought. If he criticized the conduct of the war, it was that we had limited our troops by following the laws of war and not taken the oil. He described the United States as full of enemies that contributed to its decline. As he became the dominant figure on the political right, media personalities including Mr. Hegseth amplified those messages while also responding to Mr. Trump, sharpening his criticism and steering the discourse in directions once considered extreme.

During Trump’s first term, that worldview put him at odds with generals he promoted to civilian roles, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Mr. Trump liked the idea of ​​a tough-talking four-star general nicknamed “Mad Dog” running the Pentagon, but as prominent retired military leaders issued increasingly stark warnings about Mr. Trump’s fitness while supporting America’s foreign commitments, he balked the conservative generals had enlisted in what he saw as a self-serving “deep state” that was caught up in a “woke” liberalism that was endangering the country.

Clearly Mr Trump is determined not to repeat that mistake. As reports emerged of Mr. Hegseth’s alleged heavy drinking, sexual assault and misuse of funds, Mr. Trump reiterated his support and MAGA media mobilized. This showed how much Mr. Trump wants a loyalist in the Pentagon and the loyalty of Republicans in the Senate. The allegations of sexual assault and excessive drinking (which Mr. Hegseth has denied) also dovetailed with other MAGA interests, including relief through woke social mores.

Mr. Hegseth caught Mr. Trump’s attention during his first term in office by advocating for pardons of U.S. troops accused or convicted of war crimes, including the killing of civilians. Mr. Hegseth condemned these prosecutions and castigated a corrosive mindset pushed by “weak, America-hating ACLU types.”

This hostility to restrictions on American behavior overlaps with Mr. Trump’s recent foreign policy statements. His bluster toward Greenland and Panama feels like a declining superpower looking for someone smaller to intimidate. It’s not hard to imagine Pete Hegseth using the threat of military force to further these ambitions. What message would that send to a Russia with designs on post-Soviet states, to a China with claims on Taiwan, or to an Israel that might want to annex the West Bank? Impunity in the conduct and conduct of wars is only attractive until then It becomes the norm, as it was before the world wars, which led the United States and other governments to enact international laws to prevent humanity’s darkest history from repeating itself.

Mr. Hegseth has also decried the presence of gays in the military, women in combat and “diversity attitudes” in leadership positions, including the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has used apocalyptic imagery about Marxism while insisting on the “categorical defeat of the left” in the United States. What kind of military arises from this worldview? Presumably one that is trying to push back the social and cultural changes of the last few decades within its ranks, destroy cohesion and devalue diversity as a source of strength. A MAGA military.

Loyalty to Donald Trump is at the heart of this project. Mr. Trump has complained about a military that defied his will the first time around. No one expects Mr. Hegseth to do that, nor does the kind of military he talked about building. What happens when he is asked to support the president’s political interests? Or participate in mass deportations? Or suppress political protests? The United States would struggle to return to an apolitical military that serves a constitutional citizenry rather than an individual or ideology.

To be clear, it will not be easy for Mr. Trump to achieve these goals within four years. There are laws, traditions, and competing interests that determine how large institutions like the Pentagon operate. Few people understand this better than Mr. Trump. It is perhaps no coincidence that he chose two extreme loyalists to lead the institutions responsible for the state’s most fundamental forces: law enforcement and military power. A simple confirmation for Mr. Hegseth would mean that the Senate supports the new president’s reshaping of the government. The bigger test, however, will be whether a minister Hegseth can reshape the military along MAGA’s lines.

In three consecutive elections against Mr. Trump, Democrats have struggled to find a counter-narrative to his complaints about the post-September election. 11 wars. Instead, they have reflexively defended institutions and embraced a restrictive foreign policy, out of step with the electorate. Kamala Harris was even happy about Dick Cheney’s support.

Instead of seeking endorsement from hawkish elites, Democrats need a foreign policy that addresses their own voters’ post-September discontent. 11 policies: one that reduces the risks of war, highlights the dangers of single-handed adventurism, enables the United States to lead in sectors like technology and clean energy, and earns the respect of the world. Instead of knee-jerk defense of the Pentagon, they should focus on cutting a bloated budget — including scaling back a $2 trillion nuclear weapons modernization that could fuel an arms race.

As for personnel, instead of accepting a culture war framework, they can argue that recruiting and the health of the armed forces are poor when the role of women, gays or minorities is downgraded. Finally, they should speak out firmly against the politicized use of the military within the United States as a dangerous Rubicon that the institution most Americans revere should not cross.

Of course, it is possible that the other high-profile appointments of Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Trump are merely a distraction and that Mr. Trump will govern as a more conventional conservative (albeit one with a more corrupt agenda). But it would be wrong to discount the possibility of transforming our military, just as it is wrong to underestimate the depth of resentment that led here.

“I am your retaliation,” Trump declared at the start of his final presidential campaign. Retribution for, among other things, the sense of defeatism and devaluation that Americans experienced in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. To overcome this dynamic, political leaders must find ways for America to achieve victories without defeating itself.

Ben Rhodes is a former deputy national security adviser and most recently the author of After the Fall: The Rise of Authoritarianism in the World We’ve Made.

The Times is committed to publishing a variety of letters to the editor. We would love to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some Tips. And here is our email: [email protected].

Follow the New York Times Opinion section Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Whatsapp, X And Topics.