Soccer and Testosterone

Before the main point of this post, I wanted to share my (last) thoughts on the World Cup.

First, I was obviously wrong in my prediction that France would make the final and win the day. I also gave our team a 50-50 chance to beat Belgium which turned out to be incorrect as well, as we were never in the game, practically from the start. The US team looked sluggish, hesitant, playing not to lose rather than to win. 

That was also my perception of England in their match against Argentina. When they pushed upfield they looked as good, perhaps even better. But once England took the 1-0 lead, they went into a defensive shell. Very few aggressive runs, very little offensive attacks. Again, playing not to lose. One might even say they played into the hands of Argentina, allowing them to mount wave after wave of attacks which ultimately led to two goals, and a 2-1 win.

As I had looked past Spain in my expectation that France would beat them, it might be foolish for me to do the same, to predict Argentina will successfully defend their 2022 title. But I truly think that the Argentina team just won't accept defeat, that they will find a way to win. If so, it would be a spectacular way for Messi to finish his World Cup career, assuming he won't play in 2030. But Spain is formidable so it won't surprise me if they prove to be triumphant. 

All in all, an enjoyable World Cup despite the antics of our president who couldn't help interjecting himself into the controversy regarding the red card given to our best scorer. While the foul was certainly questionable, his involvement made FIFA's rule committee appear feckless (apparently it was just one member who made the decision to revoke the suspension) and put the team itself in a no win situation as, had they won, Trump would have taken credit for it, while they would have looked to the rest of the soccer world as a team that needs their mommies to intervene for them. Not that Trump cares about other people, but just once I would like him to put aside his overwhelming narcissism and think about someone else for a change.

Which brings me to our Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. Yesterday he announced that all military members would receive a testosterone test, and have available treatment (I assume at taxpayers expense) if their testosterone level is low. 

I commented on Mr Hegseth in a previous post called Jane Goodall and the Warrior Ethos. Rather than summarizing what I wrote, here it is word for word.

-- 

Which brings us to Hegseth and his military meeting.

While there was some speculation that he might announce a bunch of firings, it turned out the purpose was to tell the leaders of the United States military, how to do their job. And specifically, how we need to get back to the macho version of the military that an insecure person like Hegseth, and his boss, Trump, deem necessary to demonstrate our collective manliness.

The phrase, "me thinks he doth protest too much" rings loud, considering the president served nary a day in the military due to a medical exception, while Hegseth, after serving, (and I give him credit for that), spent the last ten years railing about how soft the American military has become, by allowing women in combat, investigating sexual harassment claims by women in the military, and promoting women and people of color to positions of authority over any white male.

But even more importantly, so he says, the military has stopped creating and building the warrior ethos that needs to exist, both to scare our adversaries, and to vanquish them in battle.

Now, if I wanted to be sarcastic, I would say that Hegseth spent too much time reading the history of Sparta, or the conquests of the Roman Legionnaires.  Or that he must have really enjoyed those stories about throwing young boys into a pit to fight, as a way to separate the warriors from the weak.

Considering Trump's obsession with having his face on coins and mountains, perhaps they share that fixation on all that is Roman.

Also, if sarcasm was the goal, I might ask if Hegseth and Trump are planning a ground war anytime soon, as it seems that the nature of war, when both sides are adequately armed as is the case for Ukraine vs Russia, has turned to remote attacks via drones, long range missiles, targeted bombings. So, while it is quaint to think of our armed forces as the biggest, baddest men on the block, don't we also need really smart people, even nerds, if you like, to program the technology that is in use today. I certainly don't see a near future with battles featuring hand to hand combat with bayonets drawn, do you?

But let's get to the real danger of Hegseth's philosophy which, I believe, is bad for America, and especially bad for our armed forces.  

First, for the individual soldiers who are attracted to the idea that a warrior ethos makes them a better man, they might want to ask themselves if such an attitude will make them better fathers, husbands, citizens, when their military career ends. 

While a belief system that inspires our soldiers to think, act and lead like warfighters might lead to victory on the battlefield, it hinders the adjustment that veterans face when taking the next hill or killing one's enemy, is no longer a viable coping mechanism when dealing with the daily demands and tribulations of life.

Just ask any of the family members of the 17 veterans who kill themselves every day, a number that is staggeringly higher as a percentage than for non-military people of the same age. 

Or perhaps we should look to the number of veterans that are homeless in America, a number that has decreased in the last few years, thankfully, but is still indicative of a group of Americans that struggle to cope once outside the military.

Do we really think that making them emotionless warriors who are trained to kill without thinking, will provide them with a better mindset when dealing with noisy children, a daily routine that is less than exciting, various family members who may disagree with them, or any of the innumerable problems that face us everyday where violence is not the solution?

Hegseth wants a strong army, fine, but he seems to think that the soldiers who make up that army are plastic soldiers that can be replaced with a new batch when they become worn, or weak.

Of course, for a man who has a history of treating women like play toys, again, like his boss, perhaps that is consistent. 

Even worse, America is also a victim of such thinking, as this administration seems to think that being the bully of the globe will make everyone else respect us more, and do what we want. Like the tariff chaos that is ongoing, Trump has forgotten the kindergarten lesson that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Perhaps I am wrong, but the bullies I encountered in my life, whether as a child or an adult, did not earn my respect. Perhaps fear, but not respect. And certainly not a desire to see them succeed. So it should come as no surprise that this America first selfishness that goes hand in hand with "my way or the highway" is driving our traditional allies away. 

Or perhaps Hegseth and Trump think that "turn the other cheek" and "treat others as you would want to be treated" are too woke for their world view of warrior ethos.

I truly believe that most Americans would prefer that we treat our fellow Americans, as well as the other 8 billion people who share our planet, as Jane Goodall engaged with the primates she lived with and studied. That we should hold out an open hand to help rather than a closed fist to hurt.

Unfortunately, I also believe that many Americans, perhaps more than half, are on board with treating our enemies inhumanely. That all is fair in war, including killing civilians, bombing schools and hospitals, stealing children from their homes, because, well, I guess because that is what they would do to us. 

And, if there is one thing that Trump is superior at, it is telling us who we should hate, who we should consider less than human, who is out to get us. 

Whether it is the people in the boats that he is blowing up in defiance of international law, or the two million Palestinians that he thinks should be killed, or moved, or starved, or the immigrants who come here to seek a better life but are from a country that isn't white enough, or the federal workers who don't kiss his ring, whether they be in the DOJ or FBI, or any department that democrats like, or the countless number of Americans who love America but despise how Trump is remaking our country, Trump has an endless list of those we should hate, and consequently treat as if they were less than human.

So sad that people like Hegseth and Trump talk about America first yet enact policies that place Americans last. Even sadder that people who are on board with such cruelty, claim to be Christians as well.

---

In retrospect, not much to add to that. But here goes anyway.

Perhaps I am missing something, but aren't the two superpowers of the world, the two countries that have overwhelming supplies of nuclear weapons, enough to blow up the world many times over, aren't they both having difficulty in their respective wars, as we speak?

Russia has been at it with Ukraine for over four years, and while they have taken some land and have certainly sown fear in the hearts of the people who reside there, they are also suffering immense casualties on the field and are now fearing for their own infrastructure and citizen deaths due to Ukraine's amazing drone capabilities.

Iran, no ones favorite country, a place where the leaders care very little for their own people, especially women, and are willing to sacrifice literally, everything, to declare they are winning, now have, a bit of  leverage in regards to the Strait of Hormuz, something they did not have before the war began. While one could can say that they have not won even one battle, that their military capabilities have been severely damaged, that they have even less friends than before due to their attacks on some of their neighbors, America is not in control of how this will end.

Makes one wonder if all that money spent on the military, especially the  trillions we have spent on nuclear weapons, was a waste if both of the nuclear powers in the world are struggling to beat nations with far less resources.

So, again, Mr Hegseth can promote bad ass men who can beat up anyone they encounter, but unless those testosterone fueled soldiers are going to deployed on Kharg Island, or Tehran itself, to take and hold oil fields and land, his anachronistic perception of warfare is as useless as the silos filled with nuclear weapons that will never be fired.

Even worse, his Neanderthal (and I hate to disparage an entire species without really knowing them personally) perception of what makes a man a man will do far more damage than good for those young men who believe that being able to follow commands that order them to kill our enemies, no hesitation, will confirm their masculinity. Of course, if they intend to leave the military and join ICE so they can kill those people whom this administration deems less than human, at least they will have a job. Perhaps no morals, but at least a job.

In my dissection of why England lost to Argentina in the semi-final match, I point to their lack of aggressiveness, there seeming decision to cede territory (on the pitch) without a fight, to play not to lose. Perhaps it then sounds hypocritical to condemn that same methodology when promoted by Hegseth and Trump.

I guess I consider sports and the strategies that result in winning a game, just that, a game. And assuming good sportsmanship which is the rule rather than the exception, the two sides meet on the battlefield, perhaps shake hands, maybe even exchange shirts. 

While training our young people so they can kill other human beings without remorse, without questioning the morality of it, with efficiency even, is abhorrent. No communion after the fact, no comrades in battle greeting each other with respect. Just death.

But not unexpected from men like Hegseth and Trump. 

And so the decline continues.