“No stupid rules of engagement”: The content war presidency and America’s vibe-based war doctrine
The doctrine is literally and only: break things loudly.
The United States Secretary of “War,” Whiskey Pete Hegseth, has proudly declared that this war will not be “politically correct.” The United States will adhere to “no stupid rules of engagement.” No “nation-building quagmire.” This is not a “democracy building exercise.” Just “winning,” in the most Charlie Sheen interpretation possible. America is unburdened by complexity or morality. What they are calling “Operation Epic Fury” is really just “Operation F Things Up.”
When asked a painfully fundamental question when starting a new war: what, exactly, Americans are dying for, and if this could spiral into something larger, Hegseth responded like an unprepared High School debate B-stringer: “We know. We have plans. We have generals. We have chairmans. We have commanders.”
That is not a purpose nor a strategy; it is a list of job titles. Also, “chairmans?” The guy is an idiot.
This is a war being run as a content pipeline. You don’t articulate objectives. You declare vibes. There is no defined victory. The promise to “fight to win” may sound tough to Whiskey Pete, but it provides no calm for worried families of service members sent into this quagmire. Just say you have “generals” and take the next question.
Rules of engagement aren’t “stupid.” They exist because war has terrible consequences: civilian casualties, retaliatory strikes, regional spillover, international law, and the small matter of US armed service people getting sucked into endless cycles of retaliation. Discarding long-accepted RoE isn’t a show of strength. It’s branding. It’s dangerous and opens the doors to all sorts of awful behavior.
“No nation building,” he says. What replaces it? Containment? Deterrence? Regime change? Strategic degradation? Negotiation leverage? The doctrine is literally and only: break things loudly.
Meanwhile, JD Vance has floated the idea that every prior president was simply too dumb to try this approach. Generations of diplomats, generals, intelligence officers, and presidents apparently missed the obvious solution: fewer rules, more swagger.
What an interesting theory of governance! History simply failed not because war is complicated, but because previous leaders lacked the confidence to say “no stupid rules,” and adopt a bull in the China shop approach to regime change.
Posture is useful when you need a distraction. When domestic problems pile so high, you are in danger of losing control. Oversight questions might actually get uncomfortable. Competence has never been this Administration’s strong suit.
War is simply a way to flood the zone with explosions so no one asks what the plan was. If the entire doctrine boils down to “we fight to win” and “we have generals,” then the only clear objective is distraction.
They are failing across the board. When questions about their dear leader’s relations and activities with the world’s most famous sex trafficker get to be too big, shoot some citizens. When outrage over extrajudicial executions at home becomes too much, depose a few foreign leaders. Who cares if school children are murdered, families destroyed, and an entire region thrown into chaos?
Overall strategy: "Yeee Haaa!!!"
Expected result: "Thanks for the bombs. We love America now."