Hegseth Should Be Sacked!
Democrats Insist Defence Man Must Go!
Former military man, Fox News Presenter, and now Trump's Defence man has earned the ire of the Democrats. Information has been leaked about America's air attacks on Yemen, in the capital, Sanaa. Supposedly hitting Houthi targets, but in the process, civilians have been killed and injured. It is a sustained campaign, unlike the pin-prick attacks that Biden launched or that Israel launched. Day after day, American planes are hitting targets. The planes fly from aircraft carriers on sorties. However, despite the relentless American air campaign, the Houthis are doubling down. They are still firing missiles and drones at Israel and trying to hit American warships. Also, attacking international shipping continues.
The Houthis have been attacking shipping in the Red Sea that allegedly has links to Israel. Shipping has been disrupted, and some have been hit and even sunk. Shipping has been diverted from the Red Sea and has had to travel around South Africa to avoid these acts of projectile piracy. The Houthis say they are doing this in support of Gaza. When Israel finishes bombing Gaza, then they will cease their attacks, they say.
Initially, Trump and Biden got the Israelis and Palestinians to a ceasefire. It was working as well; prisoners and hostages were being exchanged. Palestinians and Israelis could breathe again. Life was getting back to normal. Then Trump allowed Netanyahu to start the war again. The Israeli PM said that from now on, he would only negotiate with Hamas from a war footing. So, a bombed region like the Gaza Strip is being bombed again, adding to the already huge civilian death toll. How many Hamas fighters have died is unclear. However, many top Hamas leaders have been taken out. Despite all this, Hamas is weaker and browbeaten, but like guerrilla armies everywhere, it is still able to inflict death and destruction on IDF operatives. When Netanyahu resumed the war, the Houthis resumed their war on Israel and Israeli-linked shipping. The US then started attacking the Houthis, and so it goes on.
Pete Hegseth was talking in a chat group of 13 individuals about US attacks on the Houthis. Hegseth's advisor told him not to discuss US military plans against the Houthis. But what did he do? He did the very thing that his advisor told him not to. These chats would have been encrypted, however, secretive information has got out. Mr. Hegseth's wife, Jennifer and his brother work for the government, where sensitive issues are discussed. Present at those meetings would have been the US military and foreign military officials.
A journalist who works for 'Atlantic Magazine' leaked the information. Now that the sensitive conversations are out in the public arena, the Democrats have leapt on it. They are calling for the dismissal of Mr. Hegseth after speaking about such information in a Signal chat group. And rightly so, in the 2nd World War, there used to be a saying "Loose Lips Sink Ships". Ironic, when you think that's exactly what the Houthis have been doing, sinking ships. It's Hegseth's loose lips speaking about sensitive issues that have been leaked. When you are speaking in chat groups, particularly when the people you engaging with are unknown, you do not discuss issues. Particularly when you are in government and a VIP like Pete Hegseth. Given that America has enemies like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, one would have thought Hegseth would have known better. Yes, we all have our off moments, but telling unknown people in a chat group about the US's military plans that info could have helped America's foes. Imagine if one of those people had been in the pay of the US's enemies. And that information was passed to the Houthis, they then would have adapted their battle tactics accordingly.
Trump was asked if he had full confidence in Hegseth. Trump said he was foursquare behind him. Asked how Trump thought Pete Hegseth was doing his job, Trump quipped, "Ask the Houthis how he is doing"!
Frankly, that's the kind of response I would expect from Trump. Frankly, it's the kind of response I would expect from any politician today, regardless of political hue.
Once upon a time, politicians would resign even if it was their first mistake or be fired. Now, that doesn't happen, those politicians remain in place. Politicians today forget that it's the people who put them where they are. This is the kind of arrogant and narcissistic age we live in when it comes to our leaders, elected or otherwise.
About the Creator
Nicholas Bishop
I am a freelance writer currently writing for Blasting News and HubPages. I mainly write about politics. But have and will cover all subjects when the need arises.
Keep reading
More stories from Nicholas Bishop and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Harriet Harman: Address The Elephant in The Room.
Labour Peer Harriet worked for two Labour prime ministers: Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. She now sits in the House of Lords and was speaking to Sky's Beth Rigby. She recalled how George W. Bush unleashed tariffs on steel imports. Back then, she remembers Tony Blair disagreeing with Bush, even though they had a growing bromance. Blair had the guts to tell Bush to his face that imposing tariffs was against World Trade Organisation rules.
By Nicholas Bishop9 months ago in The Swamp
US to Withdraw from Dozens of UN, International Organisations: Implications for Global Diplomacy
In a bold and controversial move, the United States government has announced its intention to withdraw from dozens of United Nations and other international organisations, marking a significant shift in its approach to global diplomacy. Officials describe the decision as part of a broader effort to prioritise American interests and reduce financial contributions to multilateral bodies. However, critics warn that this strategy could have far-reaching consequences for international cooperation, global governance, and the US’s standing on the world stage. The Scope of the Withdrawal According to statements from the State Department, the withdrawal will affect multiple UN agencies, including specialised organisations dealing with health, trade, and development, as well as a variety of international bodies outside the UN framework. The exact list of organisations has not been fully disclosed, but insiders suggest that it could involve entities responsible for global humanitarian aid, environmental monitoring, and human rights oversight. The move signals a clear pivot away from multilateralism, echoing past trends where US administrations have questioned the value of international institutions and sought to recalibrate engagement based on national interests. Proponents argue that the United States has been disproportionately burdened with funding and compliance obligations while receiving limited tangible benefits. Reasons Behind the Decision Officials have framed the withdrawals as a strategic recalibration. The US contributes billions of dollars annually to international organisations, and critics within the administration argue that these contributions do not always align with American priorities. By reducing involvement, the government hopes to redirect funds toward domestic priorities, including infrastructure, defence, and public welfare programs. Additionally, some policymakers have expressed frustration with what they perceive as inefficiencies, bureaucracy, and politicisation within these organisations. By stepping back, the United States aims to exert greater control over how its resources are allocated and ensure that international engagements serve concrete national interests. Global Repercussions The withdrawal has raised alarm among diplomats, experts, and allies worldwide. International organisations often rely heavily on US funding and influence to maintain operations. With the United States stepping away, several programs—particularly those in healthcare, humanitarian aid, and conflict mediation—may face funding shortfalls, potentially impacting millions globally. Experts also warn that this move could embolden other nations to follow suit, weakening the effectiveness of international governance. “The US has historically been a cornerstone of global diplomacy,” said a former UN official. “A withdrawal of this scale sends a signal that multilateral cooperation is optional, which could undermine decades of collective progress on issues like climate change, peacekeeping, and human rights.” Impact on US Influence Beyond practical consequences, the withdrawal could also diminish the United States’ influence in shaping global policies. International organisations often serve as platforms for negotiation, consensus-building, and soft power projection. By retreating, the US may lose its ability to shape standards and norms on critical issues ranging from global health emergencies to arms control. Allies in Europe, Asia, and Latin America have expressed concern about the US stepping back at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions. Critics argue that absence from international forums may allow rival powers to fill the vacuum, potentially reducing American leverage in key strategic regions. Domestic Debate Within the United States, the decision has sparked heated debate. Supporters view the move as a necessary assertion of sovereignty and fiscal responsibility, arguing that the country should not subsidise global programmes that do not directly benefit American citizens.Looking Ahead As the world watches, questions remain about the exact timing, scope, and legal ramifications of the US withdrawal. Diplomatic channels are expected to be busy in the coming months as allies seek clarity and attempt to mitigate potential disruptions. Meanwhile, the US faces a delicate balancing act: asserting national interests while maintaining credibility and influence in a highly interconnected world. The ultimate impact of this decision will depend not only on which organisations the US leaves but also on how effectively it engages with remaining international partners to address global challenges. Whether this move marks a shift toward isolationism or a strategic recalibration will likely shape US foreign policy for years to come.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 6 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.