To the Editor:
Re “G.O.P. Embraces Pick for Defense at Testy Hearing” (front page, Jan. 15):
The selection of Pete Hegseth to be secretary of defense is deeply troubling in more than one way. The attention devoted to his questionable character and unseemly past behavior should not obscure an equally fundamental problem: his stunning lack of qualifications for so important a position.
There is quite simply nothing in his résumé to suggest that he would be up to the daunting challenges he would face at the Pentagon. If one were to throw a dart at a list of 100 senior Pentagon officials currently serving, it is unlikely that the dart would land on the name of anyone whose credentials at the time of their appointment were as slight as Mr. Hegseth’s.
Our national security demands a far more experienced and capable leader.
Douglas M. Parker
Ojai, Calif.
The writer served in the Office of the Army Judge Advocate General at the Pentagon from 1960 to 1962.
To the Editor:
I am the daughter of an Army veteran, the wife of an Air Force veteran, and the parent of Marine and Navy veterans. I believe that Pete Hegseth lacks the integrity necessary to serve as secretary of defense.
When questioned about reports of public drunkenness, he could have answered “yes” or “no”; instead he said these reports were part of an anonymous “smear campaign.”
He refused to agree that sexual assault or showing up for work drunk would be disqualifying. While offering to abstain from alcohol, he refused to commit to resign if he were to drink as secretary of defense.
His refusal to meet with several Democratic members of the Armed Services Committee belies his stated commitment to run the Defense Department free of politics.
For years he argued that women are unfit to serve in combat roles. Yet he expects us to believe that his 11th-hour conversion will last beyond his needed confirmation.
When pressed by Senator Elissa Slotkin whether he would push back against the president if he received an illegal order, he responded that he could not conceive of receiving such an order from Donald Trump.
The secretary of defense is one of the most important positions in government. Americans deserved forthright answers to the questions raised about his character. The men and women serving in the military deserve a secretary who is a person of integrity and who can be an example to themselves and others.
This selection is not in the best interest of the country and should be rejected.
Mary Ann Lynch
Cape Elizabeth, Maine
To the Editor:
Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing demonstrated that, as Senator Richard Blumenthal observed, he is a smooth communicator who might be an effective Defense Department spokesman. This does not qualify him for one of the most demanding management jobs in the American government.
This hearing has been closer to political theater than a responsible exercise of the Constitution’s advice and consent process. When the framers drafted Article II, it is unlikely they anticipated a process in which senators would ask the nominee long, leading questions scripted by staff, receive glib, shallow answers, followed by party-line votes in committee and on the floor of the Senate, with completely predictable results. In a dangerous world, the nation’s security cannot benefit from oversight so superficial.
Pete Hegseth will almost certainly be the next secretary of defense. Are the leaders of China’s government and military establishment concerned about the appointment of this culture warrior? I doubt it.
Steven S. Berizzi
Norwalk, Conn.
To the Editor:
With the Democratic senators going into histrionics about Pete Hegseth, I’m surprised not one just looked at him and said:
“Mr. Hegseth, aren’t you ashamed to be considering taking on this post? You’ve fought for this country. And you obviously love this country, enough to lay down your life for it. But honestly, can you look your other soldiers in the eye, even just those soldiers you respect the most, and honestly say you can lead them as the head of more than two million troops, over generals with lifelong experience, facing command decisions for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines? Can you honestly say you’re ready for this and don’t have even the slightest misgiving?”
Mahlon Meyer
Renton, Wash.
In Los Angeles, Heroism Amid the Tragedy
To the Editor:
Re “Los Angeles Is Burning. Where Are Our Leaders?,” by Amy Chozick (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 14):
Los Angeles is in the grip of an unprecedented crisis, with major fires leaving devastation in their wake. The temptation to look for a single protagonist, a leader to step in like a character from one of our city’s movies, is understandable but a misplaced wish of Ms. Chozick.
This is not a story of one hero or savior — it is a story of collective loss, sorrow, effort, resilience and determination.
The real heroes in this tragedy are the people of Los Angeles. Neighbors are opening their homes to strangers, donating supplies and offering support in ways both large and small. Firefighters are battling relentlessly, volunteers are organizing fund-raisers and countless Angelenos are stepping up to help their city heal. This is a long game of recovery, and it requires all of us to play a part.
Blaming elected officials like Mayor Karen Bass or Gov. Gavin Newsom for the enormity of this crisis is neither fair nor productive. Leadership in times like these is complex and messy, and while missteps may occur, there are no easy solutions. Dismissing their efforts overlooks the broader, systemic challenges of fighting fires, managing the homes, lives and communities lost, and addressing climate change in a city and state as vast and diverse as ours.
Los Angeles will rebuild — not because of a single leader, but because of the collective strength of its people. This is our real life story; it’s not a movie script with a predictable story line or hero. We will be a city rising together, with compassion and determination, to create a future where we endure and thrive despite the challenges we face.
M. Jill Overdorf
Torrance, Calif.
Alone in an Empty Church, Away From the Stress
To the Editor:
Re “The Exquisite Silence of Empty Churches,” by Mary Townsend (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 5):
Thanks to Ms. Townsend and her sensitive reflection on her quest to find serenity and silence in the churches she has visited.
Our stressful world seems a never-ending welter of expectations and activities, of noise and spectacle. Seeking out quiet ambience away from the temporal swirl of distraction is an intentional act.
One’s personal anxieties, longings and challenges can be suspended in a sacred space that demands nothing during those precious moments of meditative solitude. A gentle emptying of mind can surely replenish the soul.
Joe Martin
Seattle
To the Editor:
Mary Townsend’s essay resonates with me because I felt the same way in an empty church decades ago when I found myself alone and near despair, praying for what seemed to be an impossible solution to a five-year-long plight.
Being alone away from watching eyes is precious. We don’t need to explain, impress or perform. Our thoughts with the unknown are private and sincere. Those moments stay in our memory palace for a lifetime.
James Chan
Philadelphia
