Article by Nathan J. Robinson

In 2018, Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s confirmation process was contentious, because he was accused of having sexually abused a woman named Christine Blasey Ford when he was a teenager. Kavanaugh responded angrily to the accusations, and conservatives insisted he was being smeared by Democrats for political reasons. As we showed in this magazine, Kavanaugh’s rebuttal to the charges was full of inconsistencies and outright lies, which Senate Democrats failed to press him on. There was, however, a huge amount of discussion of Blasey Ford’s accusations in the press.

There was less discussion of Kavanaugh’s actual jurisprudence. In fact, some liberal supporters of Kavanaugh insisted that because he was intelligent and studious, he was qualified for the Court, with the only unsettled issue being the accusation by Blasey Ford. It was debated whether Kavanaugh deliberately selected attractive female clerks, or whether he was a supportive mentor to women. Certainly his past behavior toward women was highly relevant, particularly in light of the Blasey Ford allegation. The problem was that, even among Senate Democrats, few seemed interested in Kavanaugh’s horrendous record as a judge, including cases in which he immunized torturers from accountability and undermined labor unions in favor of corporations. (When I wrote that Kavanaugh was clearly lying about basic facts concerning the Blasey Ford accusation, I was invited on NPR. When I wrote a long exposé of his horrific court decisions, hardly anyone read it.) It seemed to me at the time that many liberals saw something they describe as character as more important than ideology, even though ideology can have far more serious implications. As Jay Willis put it in a debunking of the “liberal case” for Kavanaugh, they are part of an elite political world that “prioritize[s] comity and civility over the real-world implications of its work.”

I was reminded of the frustrating, narrow debate over Kavanaugh in the discussions around Pete Hegseth, who has now been sworn in as Trump’s Secretary of Defense. As with Kavanaugh, Hegseth was accused of being abusive to women. (His own mother once called him “an abuser of women,” although she retracted her judgment in a recent interview and says she regretted it soon after making it.) There have been numerous accounts of his poor behavior, from getting dragged out of a strip club in uniform while drunk to squandering the funds of two nonprofits he ran (one pro-war and one pro-privatization of the VA). At one he is alleged to have “treated the organization funds like they were a personal expense account,” and even Republican insiders were concerned about his “frequent public intoxication, poor leadership and the toxic work climate he fostered within the organization.” Hegseth paid a $50,000 settlement to a woman who accused him of rape, and his former sister-in-law says he was so terrifying that his wife had to develop an “escape plan” complete with a codeword in case he got out of hand.

These are very serious accusations, although it’s not clear how the Senate should evaluate accusations that have never been put before a jury. I can see why these lurid and disturbing stories predominated in coverage of Hegseth’s nomination. But let’s be clear: this atrocious behavior is just one reason that Hegseth should not have been made the Secretary of Defense. An even more important reason that he should not be Secretary of Defense is that his political beliefs are likely to contribute to atrocities and aggressive war. A person accused of being an abuser and having alcohol problems who also had “benign” beliefs might not do much damage to the world at large in a government post, although the people around them will certainly be affected. Hegseth, however, holds Nazi-like views on Muslims. He makes Donald Rumsfeld look like Mahatma Gandhi. He should not be anywhere near power, even if every single one of the behavioral allegations against him was proven conclusively false.

First, Pete Hegseth is a rancid bigot whose “clash of civilizations” view of humanity will sanction aggressive warfare against the Muslim world. It is fair to say that if Hegseth said any of the things about Judaism that he says about Islam, it would be transparently obvious that he held neo-Nazi beliefs that could easily justify genocide. But there is a double standard on the treatment of the two religions, so that one can get away with horrific comments about Muslims that would (rightly) be career-ruining if spoken about Jewish people. He specifically says that the very presence of Muslims in a society is harmful:

“Islam itself is not compatible with Western forms of government. [Some] countries want to stay free, so they are fighting like hell to block Islam’s spread. In this age, it’s incredibly difficult to remain clear-eyed about the fact that some ideas for society are better than others. And that is where the real fight lives.”

While he cursorily acknowledges the existence of “moderate” Islam (“When appropriate, I am careful to separate individual moderate Muslims from the radical element”), he says that ordinary, non-jihadist Muslims are essentially misinterpreting their own religion, because “the real heart of Islam is much closer to Islamists than to moderates.” He usually uses the term “Islamism” rather than Islam, but repeatedly makes clear that the distinction is essentially unimportant:

“Esmat is a Muslim, not an Islamist. To him it’s a big difference, but in the larger scheme, the distinction becomes less important.
“ Moderate Muslims are battling not just the Islamists but also the bulk of Islamic theology, history, and traditions… the real heart of Islam is much closer to Islamists than to moderates.”

“Islam—the fastest-growing religion in the world—is almost entirely captured and leveraged by Islamists who believe that their mission is the same as their founder’s. Muhammad led armies, enslaved or killed his opponents, and sought to conquer everyone else. Modern Islamists, of course, have the same goal.”

“Islam and Islamism are two branches of the same theological tree. Islamism is a widespread interpretation of Islam that draws on the text of the Muslims’ holy book, the Quran, which tells the story of a leader who, empowered by his god, spread the Islamic faith by subjugation and the sword. This is a fact, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not.”

“Millions of Muslims have joined modernity and choose to live peacefully; but they do so by disregarding intolerant and violent Qur’anic passages that are no less authoritative today than they were a thousand years ago. Islamists choose to interpret the Quran as it is written, not as modernity tries to edit it.”

So Hegseth is clear: the very presence of Muslims in the United States is a problem, regardless of their interpretation of their faith or their behavior. “The United Kingdom is done for,” he says, citing the fact that many cities now have Muslim mayors. “The British were invaded, and they didn’t even know it.” As “Muslims’ birth rates have grown,” countries that permit Muslim immigration are being destroyed, because they have “import[ed] unskilled, noncontributing Islamist throngs from the Middle East.” The U.S., he says, is next. “Just like the Christian crusaders who pushed back the Muslim hordes in the twelfth century, American Crusaders will need to muster the same courage against Islamists today.” He thinks those who “ “balk at Muslim immigration bans or moratoriums” are deluded: “The ‘Islam = Peace’ narrative is a naive and cowardly worldview, because the alternative is confronting the reality of a threat that’s almost too scary to fathom.” The very fact that the U.S. lets Muslims hold elected office shows we are falling prey to the “cultural invasion”: “In November 2019, twenty-six Muslim candidates won elected office in the United States. Muhammad is now a top ten boys’ name in America—what will it be in 2030?” (Quotations are from his books American Crusade and The War on Warriors.)

Continue reading on:  Current Affairs

Donald Trump’s defense secretary pick Pete Hegseth, who has the crusader motto “deus vult” tattooed on his arm, has put bigoted anti-Muslim rhetoric at the center of several of his published books, according to a Guardian review of the materials.

Hegseth, especially in 2020’s American Crusade, depicts Islam as a natural, historic enemy of the west; presents distorted versions of Muslim doctrine in “great replacement”-style racist conspiracy theories; treats leftists and Muslims as bound together in their efforts to subvert the US; and idolizes medieval crusaders.

Experts say that Hegseth’s view of Islam is riven with falsehoods, misconceptions and far-right conspiracy theories. Yet Hegseth, if his nomination is successful, will head the world’s largest military force at a time of conflict and instability in the Middle East.

The Guardian emailed Hegseth and the Trump transition team for comment and received no response.

The Guardian has previously reported that in his 2020 book Hegseth calls for an “American Crusade”, targeting both “internal” or “domestic enemies” and the enemies of Israel. Hegseth also connected the two, writing: “We have domestic enemies, and we have international allies … it’s time to reach out to people who value the same principles, relearn lessons from them, and form stronger bonds.”

‘False, totally wrong’

In American Crusade, Hegseth presents the medieval crusades as a model for Christian-Muslim relations, but one historian of the period says his presentation of the history of that period is “just totally wrong”.

In a chapter entitled Make the Crusade Great Again, Hegseth writes: “By the eleventh century, Christianity in the Mediterranean region, including the holy sites in Jerusalem, was so besieged by Islam that Christians had a stark choice: to wage defensive war or continue to allow Islam’s expansion and face existential war at home in Europe,” adding: “The leftists of today would have argued for ‘diplomacy’ … We know how that would have turned out.”

Hegseth continues: “The pope, the Catholic Church, and European Christians chose to fight – and the crusades were born,” and “Pope Urban II urged the faithful to fight the Muslims with his famous battle cry on their lips: ‘Deus vult!,’ or ‘God wills it!’”

Hegseth has a tattoo of the same crusader slogan, which is also associated with Christian nationalism, white supremacist and other far-right tendencies.

For Hegseth, the crusaders’ short-lived victories in the Holy Land means they can be credited with safeguarding modern values. “Enjoy Western civilization? Freedom? Equal justice under the law? Thank a crusader,” having written the same thing again earlier in the chapter.

Matthew Gabriele is a professor of medieval studies in the Department of Religion and Culture at Virginia Tech, and the author, with David Perry, of Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe.

In a telephone conversation, he said that Hegseth’s picture of Muslim encroachment in the 11th century was misplaced.

“There were absolutely no incursions into mainland Europe,” he said, adding “If anything, Islam was kind of on the retreat in Iberia and other places as well. So there was no large geopolitical shift or any kind of immediate threat of Islam taking over Europe.”

On Hegseth’s presentation of the crusades as a victory for the west against Islam, Gabriele said: “The Crusaders lost. They lost everything.

“The idea that they kind of like emerged victorious is absolutely false.

“This narrative of the crusades as a defensive war, where if the Christians didn’t launch this offensive towards Jerusalem that Europe would be overrun has been a bog-standard narrative on the right: it’s something that was espoused by Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer, in 2011 and by the Christchurch shooter a few years ago.”

On Hegseth drawing a direct line between the crusaders and the modern west, Gabriele said: “It’s the worst kind of simplistic thinking,” adding: “Anybody who tells you these simple stories is selling something.”

“The British were invaded, and they didn’t even know it”

Elsewhere in American Crusade, Hegseth repeatedly characterizes Muslim immigration to Europe as an “invasion” in a way that mimics racist “great replacement”-style conspiracy theories about immigrants displacing white populations.

At one point he tries to connect – an expert says falsely – an aspect of Islamic history with the purported “capture” of Europe.

Hegseth writes: “In Islamist circles, there’s a principle known as hegira,” and then claims: “This term refers to the nonviolent capture of a non-Muslim country.”

Hegseth writes: “Hegira is a cultural, physical, psychological, political, and eventually religious takeover. History is replete with examples of this; and because history is not over, it’s happening in the most inconceivable places right now.”

Hegseth posits the US as an example where, he claims: “Radical mosques and schools are allowed to operate. Religious police control certain sections of many towns. Sharia councils dot the underground landscape. Pervasive political correctness prevents dissent against disastrous policies such as open borders and nonassimilation.”

Adducing proof, Hegseth bizarrely writes: “Take the British cities of London, Birmingham, Leeds, Blackburn, Sheffield, Oxford, Luton, Oldham, and Rochdale. What do they all have in common? They have all had Muslim mayors.”

For Hegseth, this shows: “The British were invaded, and they didn’t even know it. In one generation – absent radical policy change – the United Kingdom will be neither united nor a Western kingdom. The United Kingdom is done for.”

He adds: “The same can be said across Europe, especially following the disastrous open-borders, pro-migrant policies of the past few decades. Countries such as Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands threw open their doors to Muslim ‘refugees’ and will never be the same because of it.”

According to Hegseth, countries that do not restrict Muslim immigration ignore that “Islam itself is not compatible with Western forms of government. On the other hand, countries that want to stay free … are fighting like hell to block Islam’s spread.”

Jasmin Zine is professor of Sociology and Muslim Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University, and the author of a book-length report, The Canadian Islamophobia Industry: Mapping Islamophobia’s Ecosystem in the Great White North.

Zine said Hegseth’s narrative appeared to be an “Islamophobic conspiracy theory distorting the practice of ‘hijra’ or the migration of the Prophet Muhammad and early Muslims from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD looking for safety from persecution”, which “is now being used to promote the xenophobic idea of a Muslim ‘takeover’ of the west”.

Zine added: “These ideas are also linked to white nationalist demographic replacement conspiracies about Muslim birth rates in the west (AKA ‘demographic jihad’) and scare stories about ‘creeping shariah’, which have spawned retaliatory ‘crusader’ narratives in far-right subcultures.”

‘Hard-core leftism provides the best gateway for Islamism’

At other points in American Crusade, Hegseth appears to try to scapegoat Muslims for familiar conservative grievances, in narratives that suggest Muslims and leftists are colluding to undermine the US.

In case of a Biden victory in 2020, Hegseth predicted that an “anti-Israel and pro-Islamist foreign policy” would be introduced along with “speech codes instead of free speech, bye-bye Second Amendment” and “naked socialism, government-run everything, Common Core education for everyone, a tiny military, and abortion on demand – even postbirth”.

Hegseth also tries to connect his narrative with gripes about supposed censorship on social media platforms. “Who are the first people being banned on social media?” he asks, answering: “Not intolerant jihadists or filthy leftists but outspoken conservatives.”

At times he seems to admire what he imagines to be the thoroughgoing religious zealotry of Muslims compared with an increasingly secular west.

“Almost every single Muslim child grows up listening to, and learning to read from, the Quran,” Hegseth writes. “Contrast this with our secular American schools – in which the Bible is nowhere to be found – and you’ll understand why Muslims’ worldview is more coherent than ours.”

At another point in the book he engages in a lengthy diatribe about the Council for American Islamic Relations (Cair), which has been a bugbear for US conservatives since the “war on terror”, and claims Democrats are helping the organization cement a radical “Islamist” agenda.

“Groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and [Cair] have advanced the radical mission of Islamism for decades,” Hegseth claims, adding: “In the past two years alone, more than one hundred members of Congress – including Ilhan Omar, Adam Schiff, Rashida Tlaib, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar – have signed letters endorsing CAIR.”

Hegseth then singles out “Socialist Bernie Sanders”, who he claims is “a favorite among Muslim Americans due to his support for Palestinian causes and distaste for Israel”.

Sanders has repeatedly publicly supported Israel’s right to defend itself, even after the commencement of the current war in Gaza, while also saying: “Innocent Palestinians also have a right to life and security,” and calling for humanitarian pauses and ceasefires, and last week leading efforts to restrict the sale of offensive weapons to Israel on the grounds that it was in violation of the international laws of war.

Some of Sanders’s positions since 7 October 2023 have drawn criticism from the left, who have seen them as insufficiently critical of Israel and insufficiently supportive of Palestine.

Hegseth meanwhile, as previously reported in the Guardian, is unconditionally supportive of Israel, and has appeared to argue that the US military should ignore the Geneva conventions in favor of “winning our wars according to our own rules”.

According to Hegseth in American Crusade, though: “Leaders of CAIR speak very highly of Bernie because his hard-core leftism provides the best gateway for their Islamism.”

Source: The Guardian

President-elect Donald Trump’s selection to lead the Pentagon, Army veteran and Fox News host Pete Hegseth, has forcefully argued that steps to incorporate women and transgender personnel across the military are eroding U.S. security and that Islam is a violent force threatening to overtake America and should be countered by a new “crusade,” his past writings and commentary reveal.

Such views will come under scrutiny as lawmakers examine his record ahead of his Senate confirmation process to become defense secretary, a position in which he would oversee more than 3 million military and civilian personnel, an immense global network of bases, and the United States’ massive nuclear arsenal. As Pentagon chief, he would lead one of the nation’s most diverse institutions, comprising men and women from a range of races, ethnicities, birthplaces and religions.

Hegseth did not respond to requests for comment. As of Thursday evening, he has made no public statements since Trump announced his nomination.

Trump’s choice of the telegenic Hegseth, 44, signals the incoming administration’s intent to elevate long-standing attacks by the president-elect and his allies on what they describe “wokeism” in the military, which they blame for recruiting woes, poor morale and America’s battlefield failures. It also underscores the possibility that a second Trump presidency will again herald policies, including the then-president’s travel ban, that many American Muslims viewed as hostile to their faith.

Hegseth’s recent writings include scathing critiques of steps taken over the past decade to eliminate barriers for female service members, support the service and medical care of transgender troops, and call attention to discrimination in the ranks, offering little proof for his conclusion that they weaken the military. Democrats have argued that to retain a strong, vibrant force, the military must reflect the nation at large and provide opportunities for advancement regardless of troops’ race, gender and sexual orientation.

In his latest book, published this summer ahead of the 2024 presidential election, Hegseth called on America’s next commander in chief to shift the military’s focus — beginning by reverting the Department of Defense to its pre-1947 name, the Department of War.

“The problem is that a more empathetic and effeminate military isn’t a more efficient one‚” he wrote in “The War on Warriors.” He added: “It’s a more inefficient one. That puts everyone at risk. Which, again, is a really bad thing in the business of killing.”

In another passage, Hegseth decries what he says is liberals’ rejection of “simple realities” affecting the military, including what he identifies as greater male strength and aggressiveness. While he praises women’s historical service in noncombat roles, he pans the Pentagon’s 2015 decision, under then-President Barack Obama, to allow women to serve in all combat roles.

In his book, Hegseth cites biological differences between men and women, including greater muscle mass among men, which he said made women less apt for the demands of combat. “Men are, gasp, biologically stronger, faster and bigger. Dare I say, physically superior,” he wrote.

He also rejected arguments put forward by Pentagon leaders when they announced the combat integration decision, which was controversial within the military and opposed by some uniformed leaders: that women deserved the opportunity to serve in any unit if they could meet its standards. Rather, Hegseth said, the move would result in high casualties should those units see combat.

Continue reading on: The Washington Post