Jeffrey Haycraft is a resident of Camden.
There is a familiar pattern in George Roof’s letters: Invoke a lifetime of military service as shorthand for authority, then glide past inconvenient facts that complicate the narrative. Service deserves respect. It does not confer immunity from scrutiny, nor does it transform opinion into constitutional law.
Let’s begin with the most glaring claim: that the Uniform Code of Military Justice “takes precedence over the U.S. Constitution” (“Hegseth doing well as secretary of war”). That is simply wrong. The UCMJ exists because Congress, under Article 1 of the Constitution, has authority to regulate the armed forces. It operates within the Constitution, not above it. Military members do have certain speech restrictions, yes. But the idea that the UCMJ supersedes the Constitution is not how our legal system works. Civilian control of the military and constitutional supremacy are foundational principles, not optional footnotes.
Mr. Roof also characterizes comments from Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., as “seditious” and as a “dog whistle” encouraging disobedience. That framing conveniently omits a basic truth drilled into every service member: Unlawful orders are not to be followed. The obligation to refuse an unlawful order is not rebellion; it is embedded in military law and in the post-World War II lessons of Nuremberg. Encouraging service members to understand the difference between lawful and unlawful orders is not an attack on the chain of command. It is a recognition that the rule of law governs the chain of command.
Then, there is the casual dismissal of criticism of Pete Hegseth as “cherry-picked.” If comments from a decade ago are irrelevant, that should be demonstrated with context and facts, not brushed aside as ancient history. The same standard Mr. Roof applies to others should apply to his preferred candidate. One cannot argue that words matter deeply when spoken by political opponents but become trivial when spoken by allies.
The letter also leans heavily on sweeping claims about “clear(ing) the Pentagon of the chaff,” restoring “standards” and creating the most effective military force in eight decades. Those are dramatic assertions. Where is the evidence? What measurable improvements? What specific reforms? Invoking Vietnam, Gen. Mark Milley or secretary Lloyd Austin as rhetorical foils does not substitute for documented outcomes. Calling leaders “useless” or accusing them of dereliction without context is not analysis; it is opinion presented as fact.
And here is the larger issue: Military service is honorable. It does not grant one exclusive ownership of patriotism, nor does it make disagreement synonymous with disloyalty. The oath service members take is to the Constitution, not to a particular secretary of defense, party or president. That oath is precisely why healthy debate about leadership is not only permissible but necessary.
If Mr. Roof wishes to persuade readers that secretary Hegseth is uniquely qualified, he should do so with verifiable facts, clear legal grounding and consistency in how he evaluates conduct and rhetoric across party lines. Respect for service cuts both ways. So does accountability.
Delaware’s civic culture has long valued steady reasoning over theatrical certainty. We can honor those who served, while still insisting that arguments stand on evidence, constitutional accuracy and intellectual honesty. That standard strengthens the republic our veterans swore to defend.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
