Like many, a correspondent questioned SecWar Hesgath’s removal of a prohibition on hazing in basic and other military training. This is part of the massive package of reforms for the Department of War and the six military service branches. (As far as we know, these will not apply to the other uniformed services: Public Health Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.)

Our news editor has provided this: A few thoughts on hazing.

The “removal” of restrictions on hazing that SecWar is implementing is perhaps much different than what is being pushed by the media and certain “interested parties.”

If you look at an accurate definition of what hazing is – particularly in the military – you find that the definition being applied much of the last decade or so is not truly hazing in either the actions prohibited or the purpose of the actions. The present/past definitions are incredibly vague: what exactly is “physical or psychological injury” for example?  This matches many of the Regressive claims of recent years: that speech can be violent, that disagreement is hurting someone’s feelings and is therefore aggression against them, and the like.

Speaking as an Army Engineer officer, ALL military training – and especially basic combat training and advanced individual training – is hazardous. You are exposed to dangerous, unsafe conditions, and you are required to perform unsafe acts. Therefore, there is a constant risk of injury, both physical and psychological. I have suffered both sorts of injuries, both as a cadet, as a active duty officer, and as a reservist.

But much of what today is broadly defined as injury – especially psychological injury – is arguably not a real injury and does not result in permanent mental, spiritual, or physical damage.

The key question, in my opinion as a “victim” or “survivor” of such things, is what was the purpose of putting someone in that unsafe condition, and causing them to carry out an unsafe act or causing an unsafe act to be performed on them? Is it for some dubious purpose like initiation or admission or “just because” there is some point of pride or hubris? Or is there a legitimate military (mental or physical or even moral) purpose to put that kind of pressure on them?  A secondary question or questions: is there some better (more effective, more efficient) way of causing the trainee to change, mentally and/or physically? Is there some way in which the hazard can be mitigated to reduce the potential for physical, mental, or spiritual harm (especially long-term) without reducing the value of the training? A better way of producing the necessary results?

History shows us that effective military training does, unfortunately, result in permanent disabling injuries and deaths. (As do so many human activities we take for granted: farming and ranching, mining, and even driving on streets and highways!)  Casualties (wounding, injuring, and killing) in trainees (and trainers!) can be reduced greatly by eliminating certain kinds of training and “watering down” other sorts. Unfortunately, the changes result in significant increases in wounds, injuries, and deaths on active and reserve duty, even in peacetime, but especially in wartime. Coddling recruits in their initial training and coddling troops in peacetime training has always resulted in more casualties in wartime, and more failure as well. 

Figuring out where to draw the line has been an incredible challenge since Joshua first turned all those Egyptian slaves into an army.

Perhaps a simple comparison would be placing babies and young children into “bubbles” to protect them from any and all possible exposure to hazards as they grow up. We therefore risk much more from hazards as older children and as adults: infections and poisons. And moral and physical threats for which they have very little preparation.

Hegseth’s military is perhaps an improvement on the mess we have seen, despite some successes, in the last 30-60 years. There are still many, many things wrong with the entire War Department. Things that must be changed, and will be difficult to change. Too many of these changes must be done not in the Pentagon but in the chambers of Congress. Probably just as many are due to stupidity on the part of leaders, both civilian and military. But some critically needed changes may be underway. At least for now.

As an update and Americanization of an old French Foreign Legion saying goes, “You are in the military in order to die, and Congress sends you where and tells you how.”