Bulwark Takes - Does Trump Even Know What Soldiers Fight For? | Command Post

Episode Date: February 26, 2026

In a new edition of Command Post, Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling and Ben Parker give their takes on Trump’s military-heavy State of the Union address, including Trump’s claim that Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated” even as he suggests military action. They break down how the speech leaned more on ceremony and applause lines than on strategy, vision, or a clear explanation of U.S. national security goals. Former General Hertling also explains why praising military service without explaining its purpose risks misunderstanding the meaning of sacrifice, and why the State of the Union is meant to be more than a performance, it’s supposed to inform Congress and the American people about the country’s direction.Have a question that you'd like us to consider for a future episode of Command Post? Send an email to [e-mail]. Please include your name, how to say it and where you're located.

Hi, I'm Ben Parker from the Bullwark. And hi, everybody. I'm Bullwark contributor and retired Lieutenant General Mark Hurtling. Welcome to another episode of Command Post, a new edition of Bullwark Cakes, where we break down specifically military reality behind the headlines. Today we're going to be talking all about Donald Trump's State of the Union address, which for us was last night. We're recording this on Wednesday, February 25th. And, you know, it was weirdly a very military heavy state of the union, very military heavy. But we're going to talk first about all the things Trump said, or at least a lot of them. It was a long speech.

And then we're going to talk about a lot of the things that he didn't say. And if you want to read more about this general, you have an article you just published in the bulwark called Borrowed Valor at the State of the Union, which is all about all of the medals he gave out. what that did and didn't do. Why don't you tell us what that article's about? Yeah, it's pretty unique, Ben. I call it borrowed valor as opposed to stolen valor, which is a term a lot of military folks use when they see someone wearing a uniform and they know they're not in the services because the badges are wrong or they've got too many badges on their uniform or if someone's talking in a bar out loud about being part of Delta Force and doing the kind of things, it's a stolen valor. But in the case of what, what we saw last night, I'd consider it more borrowed Ballard, because the president, in terms of

this speech, was technically not doing the kinds of things that you're supposed to do as a president at the state of the union address, which is dictated by the Constitution. And instead, there seemed to be a lot of glorification of the military, of ICE. Well, he never mentioned ICE, but he talked about police forces in the city. And it seemed to not be. be what we would expect in a state of a union. Now, I think we ought to start off by saying, like I did in the article, as a lead, the state of the union is a responsibility of the president not to necessarily make a speech or to put on a show, but according to Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, and I'm going to quote it here, quote, from time to time,

the president gives to the Congress information of the state of the union. Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. And translating that 1700 era language into today's world, it's really to state where he thinks the country is, the kind of strategy he wants to provide to the country on what he's going to do next, and anything that they might want to consider as a future vision. I don't think he did that all that well last night. Yeah, the president is the only person who can command the military, speak to Congress as an equal branch of government, and speak to the American people with a singular voice as a representative of the whole country, which is why these state of the union addresses are so important for presidents facing international crises or war. And as you point out, presidents like FDR or Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush after 9-11 have used these addresses to tell people what the challenge is, what we're going to do about it, how we're going to accomplish our goals, to get people on board, people in the room, members of Congress, and people all over the country.

Instead, Trump just sort of seemed to, it was like the rhetorical equivalent of taking a selfie with all of these people who had done remarkable things. and I think every case served the country with great distinction, but he didn't really explain, for example, are we about to attack Iran? Why? What would we try to accomplish? What's the goal? What's the decision? Apparently, as you write in the piece, there was reported that the gang of aid,

the top national security leaders in Congress, met with administration officials immediately before the speech, and yet Trump didn't really say anything about Iran. Instead, all he did was repeat this claim that we had obliterated Iran's nuclear program. We have a clip of that. It's really confusing. Through Operation last June, the United States military obliterated Iran's nuclear weapons program with an attack on Iranian soil known as Operation Midnight Hammer.

Yeah, and the question that would evolve from that immediately, Ben, is, okay, if we obliterated, as he said back then, Iran's nuclear capabilities, why are we demanding Iran give up their nuclear capabilities today just several months later? So there's just a dysfunctional comment in terms of what he's citing and what all the Republicans are standing to their feet to applaud when allegedly there was the potential of more action, as the president stated, of not only strikes against Iran, but even him saying last week that they may actually even assault within Iran. And as you mentioned, before the meeting, there was a gang of eight session with the key members of Congress and the Senate to talk about intelligence, and along with the CIA director and the Secretary of State of what might be happening next in Iran.

And several people came out of that meeting, representatives, saying, you, need to make this case to the American public. He certainly didn't do that last night. There was no mention of what might happen in Iran in terms of a strategy or any kind of action. I do think we should take a quick victory lap here, not the United States yet, just you and I, because back over the summer, after the strikes on the Iranian nuclear program, you and I both wrote about, you wrote about the dangers of politicizing intelligence and twisting the actual truth to try to make it sound like what you wanted to say instead of what it really is. And we predicted that eventually we might be back here in this place

where the Iranian nuclear program either isn't entirely destroyed or just bombing the nuclear program didn't solve all of the issues we have with Iran. And now Trump is stuck in this box of his own construction saying, well, I took care of the problem, but now I need to take care of it again. I know this is another pet peeve of yours that he said. He went back to all of the wars that he's solved in his first year back in office. we have a clip of that too. Our country has never been stronger.

In my first 10 months, I ended eight wars, including Cambodia. Isn't it funny? Sick people. Cambodia and Thailand. Pakistan and India would have been a nuclear war. 35 million people said the prime minister of Pakistan would have died if it were not for my involvement. He definitely listed some others, including the war in Gaza. And he mentioned a war between Egypt and Ethiopia, which don't share a border.

So I was having trouble tracking that one. That had to do with water. That had to do with water rights going into Egypt. And it's still an issue of contention. He also talked about ending the war between Kosovo and Serbia. And I will tell you, if that war has ended, we're in trouble because we still have U.S. soldiers there as part of the K-Force force in order to keep the peace between those. two nations. And my contacts there are telling me it's just the same as it's always been. There's tensions along the border and there's incursions between both of them. And he didn't end the war in

Gaza. The Gaza dynamic was certainly something that the Israeli government contributed to. He may have contributed to it in terms of strikes or giving weaponry to Israel, but he didn't end that war. It's still ongoing. And as we talked, talked about too, the war with Iran, if it ended, again, why are we sending the Secretary of State and Steve Whitkoff and Gerard Kersner there to try and make an agreement in terms of the future of the Iranian nuclear capability and other things? My favorite was, he didn't say this during the speech, but he had been claiming to have ended the fighting between Cambodia and Thailand.

it did die down for a while, and then they started fighting again, and it died down again. So he said, oh, I ended that war twice. Yeah. And let's also include India-Pakistan, because I don't think there's been any peace talks over Kashmir just yet. He may have slowed the tension for a while or contributed to that, but even the Indian prime minister said that President Trump didn't have a whole lot to do about it. But the other key point that he made that I think we're overlooking, Ben, is he claimed he helped solve those wars through the use of terrorists. That was a comment that he made as

part of the rationale for ending the war that if we didn't have strong terrorists and a strong military, which I guess we're going to go back to in just a second, that some of those wars would still be ongoing. That just makes so little sense to me. Yeah. Like the idea that, on the one hand, he said, the prime minister of Pakistan, whoever it was, said, oh, this could have been a nuclear war, 35 million people dead. But it wasn't the 35 million people dead that made us stop fighting. It was the terrorists. I mean, that just boggles the mind. It's just not realistic. Bullwork takes is sponsored by Soul. I've been more mindful about eliminating anything that is affecting my health habits like my workouts, sleep, bedtime routines, and energy. So I've cut back on

the evening glass of wine and instead I'm reaching for Souls out-of-office gummies. They give me a light, happy buzz without the calories of the next day drag because I don't need my parenting skills, drag down. Soul makes feeling good simple. Make delicious hemp-derived CBD and THC products with precise dosing, clean ingredients, and formulations design for predictable, feel-good effects. Soul is the alcohol alternative that puts you in control of your mood. Their best-selling out-of-office gummies deliver a customizable calming buzz for a 1.5 milligram microdose. That's for a gentle lift or the 15 milligram deeper, more elevated experience, cautionary tale there. It's the easiest way to unwind without the groginess or next day regret of alcohol.

Give yourself the gift of a healthier unwind. Right now, Seoul is offering our audience 30% off your entire order. 30%. Amazing. Go to getsold.com and use the code bullwork takes. That's getsold.com promo code bullwork takes for 30% off. Well, and what I'd like to do now, though, is go back to the purpose of the state of the union. Again, we read the declaratory statement within the amendment in their constitution

that the president should be giving information about where we are and where we're going to the members of Congress. Now, the presidents you cited a minute ago are all modern-day presidents, And they all had the chance to use the television set to not only talk to Congress, but also to talk to the American people in one shot. Originally, you know, before the age of television, you know, the founding fathers had an idea that the president was responsible to talk to Congress because Congress represented the American people. And through Congress, he would inform the people of the nation about what the direction and the vision was for our United States. he had a chance to do both of those things last night, to tell Congress, but also to talk to the American people about strategy and about vision. And those are two things I had on my dance card, Ben, you know, sitting in front of the television,

trying to say, okay, where is the strategy, where is the vision? And what we saw, again, is instead of outlining those things, it seemed that the speech leaned almost exclusively on a whole lot of ceremonies and appointing of individuals to stand up, to bring in the U.S. hockey team, you know, all good things in and of themselves, but in my view, seemingly in an unimprope, not very appropriate for something called the State of the Union address. Yeah, I think that's right. I think your piece is exactly right, your article in the bulwark, that he is sort of trying to drape himself in the respect and glory of the United States military.

I mean, we have this clip where he said he wished he could give himself the Medal of Honor. He said this multiple times, but he repeated it last night. I've always wanted the Congressional Medal of Honor, but I was informed I'm not allowed to give it to myself. And I wouldn't know why I'd be taking it, but if they ever open up that law, I will be there with you someday. But you know, that's our highest honor, congressional medal of honor, and that's a big thing.

And it's an honor to be in the same room with you. Thank you both. Very much, Eric. Thank you. This gets to another point that I don't even wanted to talk about. You know, he brought in the U.S. men's hockey team and congratulated them on winning gold in the Olympics. It's almost like giving out these medals.

He was sort of treating it the same way. Like, oh, congratulations. You did the best at hockey, so you won the gold medal. And congratulations to you, you did the best at Army, so you won the medal of honor. But he doesn't understand that these, the sacrifices for a higher purpose. It's not just for all the sort of bloody, gory details. He clearly relished in explaining.

It's about service to something bigger. And that what we should be celebrating is not just that these people did violent things, but that they did noble things. Yeah. You know, I say some things in the article about leaders who praise sacrifice without explaining its purpose, without talking about why it occurred. You know, those two individuals that were awarded the Medal of Honor did some things that were absolutely magnificent.

So, you know, he talked about what they did, but he didn't talk about why they felt the urge to do it. The individual who held from a helicopter was lowered by a helicopter to save others was given the Legion of Merit another very high award, certainly not as honorable as the Medal of Honor, but one of the higher awards you can receive in a non-combat role. He basically sacrificed his own life to save others, and it was over 100 that the president cited. It's such an example of selflessness that can be exhibited by, here's what we want our country to, be. But instead, as you said, okay, here's your medal. Thanks a lot for playing the game.

The individual that received the Purple Heart was a soldier on the streets of Washington, D.C. that was wounded when someone shot his partner and then shot him. Yeah, putting himself in harm's way to defend the citizens of the country. But one might even question what were they doing there in the first place, which we both have done in the past. So all of these things claiming patriotism without understanding the cost of that is, in my view, very dangerous. And it's especially, it strikes home more with the troops and their families who bear the consequences of policy decisions. And that's what the president does. He does policy. He does strategy. He doesn't insert himself to get a Medal of Honor just because it's another prize to be won.

There's a lot that goes along with winning the Medal of Honor. And by the way, if I can comment on the Medal of Honor, that also struck me as somewhat strange, truthfully, Ben, because the Chief Warren Officer Five who received was awarded that Medal of Honor conducted that action about a month ago. When you give or when the Congress awards the Medal of Honor to a soldier, sometimes it takes anywhere from a year to three years to approve that medal and work it through the system. It doesn't normally happen that fast. I had a young soldier with me in Iraq who we recommended for the Medal of Honor and it went through the system and all the approval processes. it took three years, and by the time it was finished, it was downgraded to a distinguished service cross because all those board members didn't think that what he had done, which if I were to read what we had submitted,

you would say, holy smokes, what more could he have done in that situation? I was disappointed that the individual didn't get the Medal of Honor after three years of a process, and yet, I'm sure that pilot of that CH-47, the night stalkers, was, deserving of a Medal of Honor, but man, getting it a month after it was recommended seems like there were some strings pulled to me. Again, not denigrating the award, just saying it was an unusual impact award, as we call them in the military, when you do something to receive it that quickly. Maybe I should say one more thing about that. That individual warrant officer, whose name, I won't repeat, is a night stalker, which means he's part of a unit, the 160th special

operations aviation regiment that does those kinds of missions. That aviation regiment is the equivalent in the army of the Navy SEALs or the Army deltas who are on the ground. These individuals do some unbelievable things, and a perfect example is just the simplest things that are hard for them. He's flying a CH-47, a huge helicopter that has a large pipe out the front of it. That pipe is for aerial refueling. And you can imagine the dangers involved just trying to get a fuel hose to that pipe when that when that helicopter blade is spinning around even they do miraculous things in the mundane kinds of operations they have to do if you've never looked it up the the requirements for getting the medal of honor are not only very very high obviously but very specific it has to be in combat it has to be

witnessed by two other people I think have to you know be witnesses to the the action And it's conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty. That's where the name, the Call of Duty video game gets its names from their regulation for the Medal of Honor. And if you sit and think with that for a minute, you're thinking, everyone who volunteers for the military raises their right hand, swears an oath, and basically says, if I am ordered to, I will go and die for the country. That's the table stakes, right? That is like what it means to be in the military. the Medal of Honor is doing something above and beyond that duty. All the Medal of Honors that have been given in the modern era, the citations,

the description of what the person did to earn that are public. I highly recommend going and reading them. They are really inspiration. A lot of instances, they're tear-jerking. It's a award, not surprisingly, that's given out posthumously a lot of the time. And, you know, again, not insinuating in any way that these people aren't deserving, but there's a reason it normally takes so long to investigate the circumstances,

to go through the process, and to award it. It seems like maybe in this case, Trump just really wanted to give out the biggest, shiniest thing, which is a shame. And it gets to a bigger issue that we've been meaning to talk about, actually, for a few weeks here,

about how this administration seems to kind of, at a very fundamental level, misunderstand a lot of the men and women who wear the uniform of the country. And we started thinking about this because of something Marco Rubio said at the Munich Security Conference a couple weeks ago. National security, which this conference is largely about, is not merely a series of technical questions. How much we spend on defense or where, how we deploy it. These are important questions.

They are. But they are not the fundamental one. The fundamental question we must answer at the outset is what exactly are we defending? because armies do not fight for abstractions. Armies fight for a people. Armies fight for a nation. Armies fight for a way of life. And that is what we are defending,

a great civilization that has every reason to be proud of its history, confident of its future, and aims to always be the master of its own economic and political destiny. An army doesn't fight for abstractions? Yeah, all of those things he said were true. about fighting for the nation, fighting for culture, fighting for ideology and values. Those are certainly true. And in fact, we're seeing those today in Ukraine. That's what the Ukrainian military is doing. They're fighting for their national sovereignty, for their will to exist

and their freedoms. But truthfully, Ben, what I've learned over the years in wearing the uniform is the most important thing that soldiers fight for are the people next to them and for the values they hold dear. Those are abstractions. Are we part of a country that we take pride in belonging to? Are we doing the kinds of things that are part of our culture of what we've grown up to see is important. The values such as our national values of respect and the equality of mankind, the ability to say we are a free people, and that, you know, even going back to presidents who've said, we are a shining city on a hill. The abstraction is not the city that shines. It's the people inside the houses that have the light that shines on that hilltop. It's not the same. It's not the

city itself. So what Secretary Rubio was talking about was it sounded to me, especially at the end, that he was talking about defending economies and national boundaries, which are all true. It's all part of it. But the greater abstraction is, this is what we believe. I mean, I'll go back to the very issue of what American military people swear their oath to. It's to support. court and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Now, when I've raised my hand so many times to repeat that oath, I've come to realize that we are one of the very few nations in the world that swear to defend a piece of paper, a piece of paper with abstractions, with things like values and personal liberties and culture and our fellow citizens.

That's what that piece of paper is all about. And other countries who swear to defend a president or a king or a queen or a motherland or a fatherland, those can change and be varied through the ages. But when you swear to defend that piece of paper, which lists our values and the rule of law and freedom and equality, You know, that to me is pretty abstract in some ways, but it's certainly meaningful in terms of what we're trying to do. I think that is a lesson that we are all constantly learning again and again. And unfortunately, it's one that we're learning right here in the United States. Things like freedom and the rule of law are not abstract when they are threatened.

And I think that's a perfect note to end on, honestly. Yeah. Not quite ending, if I could just say one more thing. Please. The speech last night was filled with applause and members of the gallery jumping to their feet every too often while some didn't jump up at all. But at the end of it, when it all was over and people were walking out, I came back to one very uncomfortable question. And that was, was this a report to who we, to the Congress and to the American people about who we are? Or was this abdition of where we want to go?

Or were all the words and pomp and circumstances and applause lines a substitute for what the president should have delivered? And I think that's a question that we should think about as we evaluate whether or not this speech, was powerful and whether it contributed to the continued transformation of our nation into something we aspire to be. Amen. Okay, we will do this again next week. We will certainly have more news. I said at the beginning of the last show that we are still watching to see if anything happens in Iran, and we're still watching, waiting, wondering. So we will keep an eye on that, and we will see you next Thursday. And make sure to go to the bulwark.com, become a bulwark plus member.

You'll get all sorts of perks. You'll support our work and you can engage in the comments where the conversation continues. People show really interesting ideas long after these videos come out. Also, send us your questions. If you have questions about what's going on in Ukraine, that's kind of dropped from the headlines a little bit, we'll try to answer those. Send us questions about what's going on with Iran, what might be going on, what you want to know more about.

We'll explain as much as we can because as we just spent a long time discussing, we're all a little bit in the dark. And we will try to answer those questions in forthcoming shows. And those are the big ticket items. We'd also like to get questions that just might be bothering you. Last night, the president said that recruitment of the military services was off the chart. Do you have a question on why that is or what's making that happen? Any kind of military questions or national security questions, put it down, write it down, Send it to us and we'll try and address it on the next show the best we can.

Commandpost at the bulwark.com is where to send your questions. General. Thanks so much. I'll see you next week. You bet, Ben. Thanks.