O’Donnell Critiques Hegseth’s Military Language

On “Last Words with Lawrence O’Donnell,” MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell took issue with Army Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the phrase “leave no one behind,” suggesting that it’s an outdated expression following remarks Hegseth made during a White House briefing about a recent military rescue mission.

O’Donnell noted that Hegseth’s phrasing contrasts sharply with a more contemporary understanding of military service. “That’s pretty much an older version of the idea, back when only men flew American military jets,” he said, pointing out the evolution of military language and how current leaders have embraced a more inclusive terminology.

He referenced General Dan Cain’s words as being more in line with today’s reality, emphasizing that a woman could very well be the one needing rescue. “Unlike Pete Hegseth, the general realizes that could be a woman they were trying to save,” O’Donnell remarked. “Next time might be a woman.” This perspective highlights a shift towards recognition of female roles in combat.

O’Donnell continued his criticism, questioning whether the U.S. military has actually adhered to the principle of leaving no one behind throughout history. He cited the 120,000 prisoners of war left by German and Japanese forces during World War II, noting they were “left behind” for many years. He also brought up the Vietnam War, recalling the experience of late Senator John McCain, who was captured and held as a POW for five years.

In recounting McCain’s story, O’Donnell made connections to past comments from President Donald Trump, who controversially dismissed McCain’s heroism. “When I found out that John McCain was a war hero, Donald Trump said he was not a war hero,” O’Donnell stated, capturing Trump’s words: “‘I like people who weren’t captured.’”

He stressed the contrast between contemporary rescue efforts and operations from earlier wars, noting, “The commitment of 155 aircraft and hundreds of military personnel to a single emergency rescue mission would have been unthinkable during World War II or Vietnam.”

O’Donnell ultimately wrapped up his critique by illuminating a disconnect between military rhetoric and historical realities. “This notion…overlooks history,” he said. He argued that the language surrounding military personnel should evolve to accurately reflect both modern contexts and historical nuances.