Not just prepare for war, but to be able to pass physical fitness tests as a 20 year old would, for women to meet the male standards (what happened to male/female differences in sports?), and to send the military into cities they don't like.

I think a lot of people react the way they do because of fallacious thinking: if the US has two political parties, each with about 50% of the vote, then it is simply not possible for one of the parties to be run by radical extremists. Ergo, the other side has to be exaggerating or publishing fake news. (If someone has a name for this type of fallacy, please let me know.)

Of course, an uncomfortable number of people also cheer the authoritarian takeover of US government and try to normalize the mess for that reason.

Hegseth said, "To ensure peace, we must prepare for war. From this moment forward, the only mission of the newly restored Department of War is war fighting. Preparing for war and preparing to win."

Clausewitz said the same thing, and the Romans were saying "Si vis pacem, para bellum" about 2500 years ago. Is what Hegseth saying so different to JFK saying, "'Pursue peace,' the Bible tells us, and we shall pursue it with every effort and every energy that we possess. But it is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war."? Or so very different to Gerald Ford saying, "America's first goal is and always will be peace with honor. America must remain first in keeping peace in the world. We can remain first in peace only if we are never second in defense."?

Whatever the criticisms of the current US administration, someone expressing the idea that securing peace means preparing for war doesn't seem all that remarkable.

It would be dereliction of duty for everyone involved to do otherwise.