[gruez]

Based on a quick skim it looks like he's talking about combatant deaths? I suppose it's technically supports the claim of "maximize death", but in the broader context of civilian casualties it's a bit misleading. Also, isnt the whole point of a military to kill enemy combatants? It might not be an explicit objective, and there are limits to what kinds of killings are allowed, but at the same time I don't think there's any military trying to minimize deaths either, eg. by using less lethal weapons.

[AlotOfReading]

The point of a military is to achieve political goals, not specifically to kill. Notice all the rules around PoWs and how the most common role militaries play is deterrence.

[gruez]

>The point of a military is to achieve political goals, not specifically to kill.

The point of a company is to deliver shareholder value, but if boeing says the purpose of the company to sell planes, nobody is going to object.

>Notice all the rules around PoWs

I specifically acknowledged this in my prior comment

>how the most common role militaries play is deterrence.

"deterrence" goes out the window when you start a hot war.

[krapp]

>Based on a quick skim it looks like he's talking about combatant deaths?

You should have read the article more closely.

    Hegseth describes the war in Iran very differently. At a news conference last week, he said it would have “no stupid rules of engagement.” In another, he said that the U.S. military would shower “death and destruction from the sky all day long.”

    Today’s campaign isn’t about enduring freedom. It’s called Operation Epic Fury. “Maximum lethality, not tepid legality,” Hegseth said earlier this year. “Violent effect, not politically correct.” 

What part of this language leads you to believe he's only talking about combatant deaths?