maverick2076 said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

I private letter would have sufficed. But these days everyone is the main character.

---

That message had to be delivered in person. If anything, it should have been a broader audience, with more commanders and senior NCOs present to look him in the eye and see that he is dead serious about this part, and to then check their email and see that the policies implementing this have already been signed and distributed. Other leaders have paid lip service to this idea, but it's a bad cliche that no one believed. But this time it came from the CinC, and the SECWAR, and they stood in front of every senior leader and said it in plain English. "We've got your back." It wasn't a bs mission statement, or a commander's vision, something that comes out as an email, a mandatory poster, or a card that you have to carry around in your pocket as an inspectable item. Delivering that message in person was worth every penny it cost and every second of effort needed to make it happen.

Sure, it could've not been televised. But now the whole formation has seen it, heard it, and should know how serious SECWAR is about it. That has real value. And if it hadn't been televised, the liberal media could've lied and mischaracterized everything he said much easier than they probably will.

---

The only thing being talked about is the weight standards. Truly sad.

maverick2076 said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

I private letter would have sufficed. But these days everyone is the main character.

---

That message had to be delivered in person. If anything, it should have been a broader audience, with more commanders and senior NCOs present to look him in the eye and see that he is dead serious about this part, and to then check their email and see that the policies implementing this have already been signed and distributed. Other leaders have paid lip service to this idea, but it's a bad cliche that no one believed. But this time it came from the CinC, and the SECWAR, and they stood in front of every senior leader and said it in plain English. "We've got your back." It wasn't a bs mission statement, or a commander's vision, something that comes out as an email, a mandatory poster, or a card that you have to carry around in your pocket as an inspectable item. Delivering that message in person was worth every penny it cost and every second of effort needed to make it happen.

Sure, it could've not been televised. But now the whole formation has seen it, heard it, and should know how serious SECWAR is about it. That has real value. And if it hadn't been televised, the liberal media could've lied and mischaracterized everything he said much easier than they probably will.

---

He could have just sent a private video email to CiC and accidentally cc:America, per his normal way of operating.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Hey democrats, we’re not the same! pic.twitter.com/WME58PiVC4

— Nick (@Tenn_MAGA2) September 28, 2025

---

Fight for America. Pete. Vs Gay Pete (weiner on weiner guy)

are they going to return to not allowing tattoos? I'm guessing not, looking at Pete who seems to love them.

shiftyandquick said:

---

are they going to return to not allowing tattoos? I'm guessing not, looking at Pete who seems to love them.

---

If you want to lose 90% of SOCOM you should encourage this. As someone serving, it's clear by your responses you have no idea what's happening in our current military and what needs to be fixed.

Hegseth gave a good speech. Very sensible directives.

I was not a fan when he was the pick, as his personal history such as all the affairs and womanizing were yellow flags RE integrity and self discipline, plus he can have 'Look at Me!' Vibes that I roll my eyes at sometimes. That said, he is very loyal to
His boss Trump and is a very good speaker/communicator so I understand his hire. And if he sincerely has the troop's and veteran's backs then all good.

Queso1 said:

---

I private letter would have sufficed. But these days everyone is the main character.

---

It absolutely needed to be in person. Not just for the audience in question, but so every single member in the military can see it and understand it. 100% total alignment. There is nothing more frustrating than a commander or higher up coming back from a "conference' and telling you how "things are changing" and you aren't even clear what is.

Case in point, several years ago the Army Reserve pushed guidance on what they called "ready force X". Basically a strategy to have select units ready to go in varying timelines of months, weeks, or even days. Some leaders heard this and then proceeded to tell their battallions/units that they could be deployed any minute and to let employers and families know. It was a cluster F. The USARC commanding general had to come out with a video letting everyone know that's not what it meant and to calm down and ease up. No one was aligned because like the phone booth exercise things weren't clear at once.

There's massive direction change here on multiple fronts. A total alignment of the Depart of Defense, to include a name change. It had to be in person and public, so everyone could see it, so there's no confusion. And yes, quite frankly a lot of those generals needed to hear it, see it, and be told it so they can get the **** out or get the **** with it.

shiftyandquick said:

---

are they going to return to not allowing tattoos? I'm guessing not, looking at Pete who seems to love them.

---

Do you know anyone in the military? A single person? I ask because your posts betray a certain level of ignorance about the military that I didn't know existed since the advent of the internet.

Having seen the content and delivery of the speech that he gave, it made sense why it was done the way it was. That speech was meant to be directly heard and seen by the entire armed forces, not just the attending general staff. thus the extra theatre. I get the intention and agree with the approach.

There is good content and input on this thread then there are silly posts about inane BS. No in-between.

Are the refreshed standards that Hegseth is setting going to put the US military in a much stronger position to fight?

MaroonStain said:

---

There is good content and input on this thread then there are silly posts about inane BS. No in-between.

Are the refreshed standards that Hegseth is setting going to put the US military in a much stronger position to fight?

---

Probably, but the non-career types will also be put in a better position to get jobs when they get out. My 19 year old needed a job that would take his 9-out-of-10 good decisions and change it to 10 instead of 8.

Teslag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

are they going to return to not allowing tattoos? I'm guessing not, looking at Pete who seems to love them.

---

If you want to lose 90% of SOCOM you should encourage this. As someone serving, it's clear by your responses you have no idea what's happening in our current military and what needs to be fixed.

---

Yeah I guess I didn't know about the "rise of the fatties" movement in the military and ignoring all their regulations. Did this happen strictly during the Biden administration, or was it also happening in the first term of Trump's presidency?

shiftyandquick said:

---

are they going to return to not allowing tattoos? I'm guessing not, looking at Pete who seems to love them.

---

Of course. When I think combat readiness, I think "no tattoos". /hard eye roll

Seems like many of you are not familiar with the history of changes in the regulations of tattoos in the US military. This might catch you up a little. I don't think this is a case of me not knowing history. It's rather the opposite. Maybe some of you are young and don't remember the prior restrictions on tattoos.

The loosening of restrictions on tattoos did not stem from anti-wokeness. It came from difficulties in recruiting. If they could allow tattooed recruits, then the recruitment pool increases. Esp within the recruiting pools that they get people to enlist.

https://www.coffeeordie.com/article/military-tattoos

shiftyandquick said:

---

Teslag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

are they going to return to not allowing tattoos? I'm guessing not, looking at Pete who seems to love them.

---

If you want to lose 90% of SOCOM you should encourage this. As someone serving, it's clear by your responses you have no idea what's happening in our current military and what needs to be fixed.

---

Yeah I guess I didn't know about the "rise of the fatties" movement in the military and ignoring all their regulations. Did this happen strictly during the Biden administration, or was it also happening in the first term of Trump's presidency?

---

Started much earlier than that, when we started lowering recruiting standards during GWOT, and focused on deploying over and over instead of maintaining standards. So think Obama's first term. And with that came relaxed grooming standards to be more inclusive, not enforcing weight standards because no one would process a discharge, etc. all during the Obama years. Not much changed during Trump's first term, although it was nice to have a president that got us out of wars and didn't openly despise us. And the Biden years kicked the slide of standards into overdrive.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Hey democrats, we’re not the same! pic.twitter.com/WME58PiVC4

— Nick (@Tenn_MAGA2) September 28, 2025

---

Make Appearances Matter Again pic.twitter.com/KUuDLhh8vd

— Outspoken™️ (@Out5p0ken) October 1, 2025

shiftyandquick said:

---

Teslag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

are they going to return to not allowing tattoos? I'm guessing not, looking at Pete who seems to love them.

---

If you want to lose 90% of SOCOM you should encourage this. As someone serving, it's clear by your responses you have no idea what's happening in our current military and what needs to be fixed.

---

Yeah I guess I didn't know about the "rise of the fatties" movement in the military and ignoring all their regulations. Did this happen strictly during the Biden administration, or was it also happening in the first term of Trump's presidency?

---

It's been slowly decaying for decades.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Seems like many of you are not familiar with the history of changes in the regulations of tattoos in the US military. This might catch you up a little. I don't think this is a case of me not knowing history. It's rather the opposite. Maybe some of you are young and don't remember the prior restrictions on tattoos.

The loosening of restrictions on tattoos did not stem from anti-wokeness. It came from difficulties in recruiting. If they could allow tattooed recruits, then the recruitment pool increases. Esp within the recruiting pools that they get people to enlist.

https://www.coffeeordie.com/article/military-tattoos

---

I think most of us serving or who have served don't give a **** because tattoo policy is inconsequential when it comes to killing people and breaking things. Which is a policy pillar you seem desperately eager to avoid.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Hey democrats, we’re not the same! pic.twitter.com/WME58PiVC4

— Nick (@Tenn_MAGA2) September 28, 2025

---

Make Appearances Matter Again pic.twitter.com/KUuDLhh8vd

— Outspoken™️ (@Out5p0ken) October 1, 2025

---

More superficial critiques. Which policy changes of hegseths do you think make us less lethal?

pollo hermanos said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

On the other hand maybe we could maintain the status quo and continue with the wussification of America.

---

No reason to do that. I would love to hear the thoughts of senior military folks. Most of us on this thread don't really know what the hell we're talking about. Let's get the thoughts of folks that we're getting talked to. Would be fascinating to hear.

---

I guarantee you the ones still worth a plugged nickle were consulted before these policies were announced and implemented and are in full agreement that they were long overdue.

The Democrats have done everything withing their power over the past 40+ years to weaken our military and diminish our readiness/ability to fight and win. All the bellyaching tells me is that Trump/Hegseth were right on target with these policies and doing exactly what is needed to restore our readiness to where it should be.

Those crying about it, both military and non-military, are the problem. Thankfully they will soon be irrelevant.

" Wish it was like this when I was the XO… it was walking on egg shells not to upset a emotional fragile marine."

When I joined the military and early 2000s you couldn't have visible tattoos while in short sleeve dress uniform. Tattoos detract while trying to present as a professional fighting force. I am pretty meh about it, but whatever the standard is needs to be met.

During parts of OIF/OEF you would have a high probability of getting kicked out of the Army if you failed two PT tests/HW tests in a row. By the end of my time in the Army a lot of times soldiers would be on the overweight or remedial PT programs for a long time before they were taking discharge actions. Also, in my later years it honestly felt like 50% of males had shaving profiles.

All of these standards(height/weight/shaving/etc) is not overly important to what Hegseth said. And I agree with the other higher ranked leaders here that it was more about supporting the leadership and not bowing down to making soldiers feelings the priority. And making the military more lethal and able to sustain war without the ridiculousness of liberal policies.

And another thing, I absolutely detest trying to put green initiatives into the military. They do nothing but reduce the militaries effectiveness. The military is not there to save the planet. It is there to save the United States and dominate our enemies.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Teslag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

are they going to return to not allowing tattoos? I'm guessing not, looking at Pete who seems to love them.

---

If you want to lose 90% of SOCOM you should encourage this. As someone serving, it's clear by your responses you have no idea what's happening in our current military and what needs to be fixed.

---

Yeah I guess I didn't know about the "rise of the fatties" movement in the military and ignoring all their regulations. Did this happen strictly during the Biden administration, or was it also happening in the first term of Trump's presidency?

---

Probably started under Obama. Trump had seditious leadership in his first term, so probably little interruption.

If it started earlier under W and during the WoT, that would be a surprise.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Hey democrats, we’re not the same! pic.twitter.com/WME58PiVC4

— Nick (@Tenn_MAGA2) September 28, 2025

---

Make Appearances Matter Again pic.twitter.com/KUuDLhh8vd

— Outspoken™️ (@Out5p0ken) October 1, 2025

---

Good thing Trump only has to fight the weanie Dems.

Watching old videos from the peak woke era feels like a fever dream

pic.twitter.com/0wSSJoZp1k

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 1, 2025

Aggie95 said:

---

Being covered on Fox News. He sounds like a preacher or someone giving a campaign speech.

I wonder how many of these Generals will walk out and quit? Probably not a bad thing but curious.

Ha! Calling out fat Generals!

---

Very few will quit because they support the standards that he is directing but some will be show the door. Also those are the same type comments senior military leaders gave to their troops before Biden's impact on the military. I served 26 years and work very closely with the US Army globally. This directive will have a tremendous impact on readiness once the military leadership has time to implement and resource.

Generals gather in their masses
Hegseth calls them all fat asses….

will25u said:

---

Watching old videos from the peak woke era feels like a fever dream

pic.twitter.com/0wSSJoZp1k

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 1, 2025

---

Intentional inclusivity and prioritizing concern with marginalized or difficult conversations has nothing to do with effective killing in the battlefield and winning wars.

I thought he did a good job with his speech. Especially with, would you encourage your child or grandchild to be in the military without his standards. His standards are eliminating in the military the woke ideology, the DEI system , and anything is ok as long as we meet our quotas. This is a business of life or death. Let's get back to the truth and reality of what we are doing.

I haven't seen the whole speech yet but caught some coverage on the news last night. I thought I heard something about a change in the rules of engagement.

Would some of you please discuss that. I've felt for years that America imposed some of the worst conditions for our armed forces to engage in combat. It feels ever since Viet Nam we've restricted ourselves too severely. If we are going to put our fighting forces in harm's way, let them defend themselves to the best of their ability.

Haven't seen this but defeating ISIS comes to mind. That effort was stagnant until Trump got elected and he unshackled our ROE. We almost immediately started annihilating their ass in relatively short order.

Our ROEs needs to be more like Israels, or against a bad one like theirs, Russia's.

Show the kindness after the surrender. That's what we did before in the ones won.

bobbranco said:

---

Don't know why you are angry about making our warriors into the best warriors.

---

they aren't "making the best warriors," they're larping as drill sergeants on a talk-show set

Old McDonald said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Don't know why you are angry about making our warriors into the best warriors.

---

they aren't "making the best warriors," they're larping as drill sergeants on a talk-show set

---

Did you serve?