by
Celal
Gunes/Anadolu
via
Getty
Images)
I
understand
both
sides
of
the
argument
about
blowing
up
boats
allegedly
carrying
drugs
near
Venezuela.
There’s
the
coastal
elite
version
of
events: The
United
States
is
not
at
war
with
the
drug
cartels. There’s
no
armed
conflict. There’s
just
some
criminal
activity,
which
should
be
controlled
in
the
usual
way. Drug
boats
should
be
stopped
and
searched,
and
their
operators
should
be
arrested
and
tried;
they
should
not
be
blown
up. The
penalty
for
transporting
drugs
is
years
in
prison,
not
immediate
death
without
proof
or
jury. When
a
first
bomb
strike
doesn’t
kill
everyone,
survivors
should
be
rescued
and
tried,
not
blasted
into
small
bits
as
they
sit
atop
a
capsized
boat
in
the
middle
of
the
ocean. As
a
society,
what’s
come
over
us?
But
there’s
another
side
of
that
coin,
which
I
fully
understand: Drug
dealers
are
scum
who
ought
to
die. The
military
is
probably
pretty
good
at
sorting
out
who
the
drug
dealers
are. If
the
military
kills
those
bastards,
that’s
OK
with
me. It
just
saves
us
the
cost
of
trying
and
imprisoning
the
creeps. And
I
don’t
really
care
if
the
military
is
occasionally
wrong
when
it
kills
people. If
the
military
is
right
97%
of
the
time,
and
3%
of
the
people
we’re
killing
are
innocent,
then
that’s
just
collateral
damage
in
the
war
on
drugs.
Innocent
people
get
killed
in
the
streets
of
American
cities
by
drug
dealers
(and
cops
with
bad
aim)
pretty
regularly. That’s
just
collateral
damage. If
a
few
Venezuelan
fishermen
die
the
same
way,
I
feel
bad
for
them. But,
on
balance,
what
we’re
doing
is
right. Only
pointy-headed
intellectuals
don’t
understand.
Those
are
the
arguments,
right?
I
personally
think
the
pointy-headed
intellectuals
have
the
better
of
this,
but
my
gut
says
that
the
opposing
viewpoint
isn’t
entirely
crazy. A
little
bloodthirsty,
maybe,
but
not
crazy.
On
the
other
hand,
I
simply
don’t
understand
the
argument
over
whether
Secretary
of
Defense
Pete
Hegseth
was
wrong
to
use
his
personal
phone
to
send
messages
to
a
Signal
chat
group
giving
advance
notice
of
an
American
air
strike
to
people
who
did
not
need
to
know
about
the
operation.
Hegseth’s
messages
were
really
just
humble-bragging
in
a
remarkable
way: “I
was
just
made
the
Secretary
of
Defense! I
know
some
cool
stuff
that
even
you
don’t
know! So
I’m
going
to
show
off
to
the
vice
president
and
a
bunch
of
other
people
by
letting
them
in
on
the
cool
stuff
even
though
they
don’t
need
to
know
about
the
on-going
operation.”
Hegseth
thus
recited
confidential
information
on
a
Signal
group
chat,
which
is
not
an
approved
method
for
transmitting
confidential
communications. Hegseth
disclosed
what
Libyan
targets
American
planes
would
be
bombing
a
couple
of
hours
in
the
future. It
turned
out
that
Hegseth
accidentally
included
the
editor
of The
Atlantic in
his
group.
This
is
indefensible.
It’s
indefensible
if
you’re
a
coastal
elite
thinking
about
the
issue.
It’s
also
indefensible
if
you’re
one
of
the
folks
who
think
Venezuelan
drug
boats
should
be
bombed: Bombs
in
Venezuela
are
arguably
defensible;
Hegseth’s
conduct
is
not.
Finally,
Hegseth’s
conduct
is
indefensible
if
you’re
a
Republican
in
Congress
spewing
talking
points: “No
one
was
actually
hurt
by
what
Hegseth
did!”
So
what?
People could have
been
hurt,
and
that’s
what
matters. Why
is
the
Secretary
of
Defense
blathering
to
people
(with
no
need
to
know)
about
an
on-going
operation? “No
one
was
ultimately
hurt”
does
not
excuse
this
bad
judgment.
Members
of
Congress
have
also
said:
“The
Secretary
of
Defense
has
the
power
to
declassify
information.
Hegseth
was
implicitly
declassifying
the
information
as
he
typed
it
into
the
Signal
group.”
Are
you
high? (Was
Hegseth?) First,
this
plainly
was
not
what
was
actually
happening.
Hegseth
was
not
choosing
to
declassify
information. He
was
humble-bragging,
because
he
was
delighted
to
have
been
made
the
Secretary
of
Defense,
and
he
wanted
to
show
off.
Use
your
common
sense.
Second,
even
if
Hegseth
were
implicitly
declassifying
information
as
he
typed,
why
would
Hegseth
have
thought
it
was
intelligent
to
declassify
confidential
information
hours before a
strike
was
to
take
place? If
the
information
was
declassified,
information
about
the
timing
and
location
of
American
air
strikes
could
have
been
made
public
before
the
event.
Indeed,
only
the
good
judgment
of
the
editor
of The
Atlantic prevented
this
from
happening.
Make
that
editor,
Jeffrey
Goldberg,
the
Secretary
of
Defense;
at
least
he’s
not
a
moron.
There
would
be
one
plausible
defense
of
Hegseth
on
slightly
different
facts: “What
Hegseth
did
was
wrong
and
stupid. He
shouldn’t
have
done
this. But
he’s
acknowledged
the
mistake
and
learned
from
it,
and
I
don’t
think
this
one
mistake
should
force
him
to
leave
office.”
Hegseth
of
course
has
not
acknowledged
the
mistake. Case
closed.
Leave
office.
Even
if
Hegseth
did
acknowledge
the
mistake,
I’d
still
think
the
gross
stupidity
of
disclosing
details
of
an
ongoing
operation
requires
removing
Hegseth
from
office. You
might
disagree
with
this. But,
as
I
said,
this
is
not
what
happened. Hegseth
stands
by
what
he
did.
On
the
facts,
there’s
simply
no
plausible
defense
of
Hegseth’s
conduct. The
entire
defense
is
partisan
grandstanding,
and
it
should
nauseate
anyone
who
hears
it.
In
fact,
let’s
go
back
to
bombing
Venezuelans. At
least
I
understand
why
someone
would
choose
to
do
that.
Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].