Hegseth declares no quarter will be given(www.war.gov)
16 pointsby JasonADrury5 hours ago8 comments
  • Kim_Bruningan hour ago
    I'm going to assume that maybe he's getting a bit too caught up in his own rhetoric, and this doesn't mean that he's actually going to give that order.

    Hopefully?

    But he should at very least know better if he's the secdef. If anything, the civilian leadership should be more restrained than the military.

    And it does signal that no one is briefing him beforehand on things you really should or shouldn't say.

    • krappan hour ago
      >But he should at very least know better if he's the secdef.

      He wasn't selected to know better. He's an ex Fox News commentator and far-right Christian nationalist. He has Nazi tattoos. The right has been salivating for a hardcore military of Spartan chads running "with the safety off" ever since Vietnam and he's giving them exactly the performance they want to see.

  • 4ndrewlan hour ago
    The most chilling statement is this.

    "CNN doesn't think we thought of that. It's a fundamentally unserious report. The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better."

  • JasonADrury5 hours ago
    > Our response? We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies

    The Hague Convention IV (which the US is a signatory to) has this to say:

    >Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden

    >(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;

    This is a pretty significant statement given that Hegseth is explicitly stating that the US will summarily execute surrendering Iranian combatants.

    • hyperhelloan hour ago
      Of course, but on the other hand: Shucks, he’s just a good old boy.
  • Finnucane5 hours ago
    Just change his title to Secretary of War Crimes.
  • h4ch15 hours ago
    Really hope this doesn't mean a ground invasion in the near future.
    • JasonADrury5 hours ago
      Surely this kind of murderous rhetoric is more in line with possible use of nuclear weapons.

      If you're announcing that you'll kill surrendering Iranians, it seems to follow that you intend to kill lots of Iranians and are not particularly concerned with the ethical implications.

      • tastyface2 hours ago
        Not that Trump or his administration have two brain cells to rub together, but who would they even nuke? Teheran? Millions of lives lost, any Iranian support for the war evaporates, and US instantly becomes a pariah state. (Plus, leadership is likely hiding far away from the capital at this point.) The coastline? The Strait of Hormuz becomes an impassible fallout zone and IRGC attacks are decentralized anyway.
        • Newlaptop2 hours ago
          > US instantly becomes a pariah state

          Aren't we already?

          The current administration has torched relationships with essentially every allied country except Israel. From Toronto to Taipei, and across NATO and BRICS, people see the US as a chaotic bully to be dealt with, not a friend or role model.

          I don't think that "other countries won't like it" carries any significance at all to the people in power.

          • tastyface39 minutes ago
            By "pariah state," I mean immediate sanctions and closing of borders -- like Russia circa 2022 but more severe.
  • ungreased06755 hours ago
    Love the guy, but his doctor should dial back his HRT dosage a touch. What national interest is served by putting out statements like this? Just do, don’t talk.
    • Bender5 hours ago
      That caught my attention as well. I can make a couple guesses. We are fighting religious zealots that do not surrender. They historically have waited out aggressors in deep bunkers. My guess is that Pete is trying to match our rhetoric with their zealotry otherwise we are just a joke to them. If the actions of the military match his rhetoric then we may be respected as legitimate adversaries. Of course "No Quarter" violates international law but AFAIK nobody follows such laws any more and nobody outside of specific regions of Africa specific warlords have been prosecuted for it in recent times. That's of course just a guess.

      It could also be projection of the Templar's in reference to one of his tats fighting the Muslims during the Crusades. There is talk in one of their documents of preparing the world for the return of Jesus Christ. That should probably concern people a bit more, I think. It appears both sides want this to be a holy war of sorts. It is creating a bit of a stir. [1] There are no rules in a holy war beyond Victory or Death. Even if this is all truly just rhetoric it should concern people as such times can be excuses to implement very draconian laws.

      [1] - https://www.military.com/daily-news/2026/03/03/military-offi...

      • 2 hours ago
        undefined
    • grumio3 hours ago
      Do you think surrendering combatants should be killed?
  • allears5 hours ago
    That's just his two cents worth.
  • SilverElfin5 hours ago
    Remember Hegseth views himself as a Christian warrior. He was a pick from the heritage foundation, where a Christian nationalist named Russell Vought wrote a lot of the project 2025 plan. This person is unhinged but he has the qualities those pulling the strings want.