This is bad. What other reason would an autocratic nut job like trump can qualified officers barely into their terms plus all the JAGs if not for political reasons. Make it easier to declare martial law when he feels it’s time to finally crush dissent and end representative democracy? Force the military to engage in some wild imperialist adventure? There are no transparent good reasons and plenty of opaque bad ones.
You are dead wrong. DEI is unconstitutional and military officers swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. These officers executed DEI and even doubled down on it beyond what was ordered. Not one said these orders are illegal.
Their moral courage was lacking. The defense of “I was only following orders” died at Nuremberg. Gen Brown even decided that the percentage of white officers needed to be limited. He demonstrated that he was a racist with a chip on his shoulder for years.
In the highest level of the US military the option to retire on principle leads to a fairly comfortable retirement and not at the gallows. A General can turn to any superior and say: “ You deserve someone who can execute these orders without reservation and to the best of their ability. I am, in good conscience, not that person and submit to retire.”
Pundits often fall back on the myth that these officers had worked their way to the highest levels based on professional merit. DEI has permeated the military formally and informally for many, many years. Some advance by merit and some by political favor. Some are identified very early on as ambitious to the detriment of all other considerations.
A number of senior people have been retired precisely because they were űber political contrary to their oath. They reached the absolute pinnacle of their profession, deserved or undeserved, and can head into the next stage of their life comfortably. No tears for them. Batter up.
Further to Douglas C Rape’ comments, for at least two decades the military has allowed itself to become “civilianized”, the perceived fear was that the civilian population was traumatized by the evil men in green suits that carried weapons. Thus the military academies and professional military colleges such as the Naval War Collage took on a different tone. In addition those officers that found the time and ability to be sent to Harvard PMD courses or The Kennedy School of Government as example began to lose their contact with the reality of their profession. Which is to deter and attack and kill adversaries as deemed appropriate by the civilians running the government, who in principle are elected by the people. This post is nice and well written, but is emblematic of the problem any American must understand. Your professional military is not equipped at the most senior levels to tell you the truth. A. We are not ready for any kind of peer foe fight. B. We are under strength and need to reconstitute the military services with soldiers, sailors, air men/women and Marines who are fit, motivated and capable. With that goes the senior leadership role in making sure those in uniform live in healthy living conditions, have healthy food and can literally afford to be in the military as a profession. If a case in point need be made about how bad the senior leadership is, look no further than the Chief of Naval Operations, On her watch most recently, the USS Gettysburg freshly reconfigured with a $600 million dollar air defense system shot down a returning FA/18, missed the second plane aka the wingman and only with great luck the two man crew were not killed aboard the FA/18, that crashed into the Red Sea, That in a different era, like 20 years ago would have the CNO’s resignation on the Secretary of the Navy’s desk. Nope. Fast forward the USS Harry Truman CVN 78 collided with a merchant vessel, damaging it enough to require it to come off the line for repairs. That event 20 years would have had the CNO’s resignation on the SecNav’s desk. But, no. Nothing to see here, a fighter jet here and an aircraft carrier there, no regard to the fact the merchant vessel with a cargo of properly prepared fertilizer could get close enough to the CVN to blow it to kingdom come, and the CNO wasn’t going anywhere, until….the SecDef said enough, you’re incompetent so you’re done. It didn’t matter that she was a woman, or a man; in this case the CNO was just flatly incompetent and did not inspire the trust and confidence of her subordinates or that of her superiors. Out you go. More coming. Do not be surprised to see a bunch of full colonels and or Navy Captains filling 1 and 2 star posts and some 2 and 3 stars coming out of retirement to fill 3 and 4 star posts and an overall reduction in the number of flag officers in total in our armed services. Stuff is getting real and the fools along with their ships are going the way of quail.
I know there have been horrendous military blunders in both peace and war times, and I know ships' captains have sometimes been held responsible. But I don't recall a CNO resigning over such an incident, as you describe. Can you point us to an example?
Halsey got 4% of his fleet and 800 people killed in a hurricane because he was an idiot and he got promoted. Patton lost 500 men trying to rescue his own son-in-law 80 miles behind enemy lines and nothing happened, so no, a CNO would not resign because a carrier had a fender bender
I would direct any and all to senator Tom Cotton’s report on the status of the surface navy now several years old. Things have not gotten better. If you consider a CVN 1093 feet long with billions of dollars of equipment on board, a hot nuclear reactor, roughly 5,000 souls aboard colliding with a merchant vessel in and around contested waters a ‘fender bender” than indeed we are a lost navy. It was not the amount the damage physically rather the lack of discipline across the Navy and for that matter the services in general that are part of the problem. Either we have a military and military culture reporting to and following the lawful orders of the civilian commander in chief and upholding the oath of office or we are and have something different going on. Not wishing to just pick on the Navy, as a Marine Infantry Officer circa 1978-1982 watching the current Commandant of the Marine Corps and his immediate predecessor severely damage the USMC’s ability to carry out Title X statutory mandates, it is a shocking scene. Basically telling congress what missions the Corps will undertake and those which it will not, because these generals got a wild idea up their backside and want to do something different. After 5 years and divesting to invest in the new idea, they have absolutely nothing to show for it. It would not surprise the writer if DOGE and the SecDef and SecNav conclude that the best that can be done for the Country and Corps is to dissolve the Corps and move the assets to the Army and Air Force. Thus saving $38/$39 Billion a year.
My point was and is not that there direct examples of the CNO resigning over a typhoon or collision, it is their duty and the honor of their post and responsibility that should drive the decision to resign. Meaning, they cannot be on the bridge of every Naval vessel in the fleets (though some micromanaging Admirals try) it is saying I am the direct representative of our Navy and its not going in the right direction, we need a change. Don’t try staying CEO of a publicly traded company after post losing results a couple of losing quarters in a row. By the way, the SecNav doesn’t have to accept the resignation. No one wants to take responsibility, filthy black mold ridden living quarters, substandard chow, poor pay, not my job man say the men and women with the stars. If people don’t the enlisted and junior officers don’t see the hypocrisy and substandard leadership at the flag level guess again. New flash they are the ones doing the work. They want leaders with substance, not mushy bureaucrats that wear a uniform and are quasi civilian military “professionals.”
I haven't read any of the books you cited, nor have I ever served, so I'm certainly at a disadvantage in commenting. Nevertheless, perhaps the view of a civilian Trump supporter is worth considering.
The US military hasn't exactly covered itself in glory the past few decades, as it has ignominiously fled Afghanistan after 20 years, and left a smoldering crater of ruin and misery in Iraq, to the benefit of no-one besides Iran. The Congressionally unauthorized (ie illegal) war in Libya was no better, and in many ways worse, as is the current proxy war in Ukraine- largely fought, so far as I can see, so the former President's crack-head son could justify his well compensated stint as a board-member for a Ukrainian energy company despite having no energy or corporate experience, nor even speaking the language in which it's meetings were conducted. No worries on the latter, however, as he never attended any board meetings, so his inability to understand what was said was no obstacle. I only wish I was exaggerating.
Former joint chief-of-staff General Milley is widely reported to have engaged in Sedition during Trump's first term, although I guess we'll never know for sure since he was pre-emptively pardoned by the previous President, father of the aforementioned Burisma board-member.
None of the military branches have hit their recruiting goals in years, and the immediate reason appears to be that military families have lost faith in the service and have begun advising their young men not to serve.
There's more, of course, but the TLDR is that we have a broken military leadership, already politicized, and badly in need of reform. Claiming they deserve the benefit of the doubt is ridiculous. Maybe President Trump's reforms are rash and ill-considered, but I certainly can't justify deferring to a military that has failed so conspicuously for so long.
Stating you haven’t read anything (even tho I talk extensively about the books in the article?) or haven’t served. Than talking about Hunter Biden and Burisma in an article about American civil-military relations? Sorry I will not be considering your view lol
This is bad. What other reason would an autocratic nut job like trump can qualified officers barely into their terms plus all the JAGs if not for political reasons. Make it easier to declare martial law when he feels it’s time to finally crush dissent and end representative democracy? Force the military to engage in some wild imperialist adventure? There are no transparent good reasons and plenty of opaque bad ones.
You are dead wrong. DEI is unconstitutional and military officers swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. These officers executed DEI and even doubled down on it beyond what was ordered. Not one said these orders are illegal.
Their moral courage was lacking. The defense of “I was only following orders” died at Nuremberg. Gen Brown even decided that the percentage of white officers needed to be limited. He demonstrated that he was a racist with a chip on his shoulder for years.
In the highest level of the US military the option to retire on principle leads to a fairly comfortable retirement and not at the gallows. A General can turn to any superior and say: “ You deserve someone who can execute these orders without reservation and to the best of their ability. I am, in good conscience, not that person and submit to retire.”
Pundits often fall back on the myth that these officers had worked their way to the highest levels based on professional merit. DEI has permeated the military formally and informally for many, many years. Some advance by merit and some by political favor. Some are identified very early on as ambitious to the detriment of all other considerations.
A number of senior people have been retired precisely because they were űber political contrary to their oath. They reached the absolute pinnacle of their profession, deserved or undeserved, and can head into the next stage of their life comfortably. No tears for them. Batter up.
Well, that's a load of horseshit. When did you first start to hate America?
“If this trend toward politicizing the military continues unchecked…”
looks like it just got checked….
Further to Douglas C Rape’ comments, for at least two decades the military has allowed itself to become “civilianized”, the perceived fear was that the civilian population was traumatized by the evil men in green suits that carried weapons. Thus the military academies and professional military colleges such as the Naval War Collage took on a different tone. In addition those officers that found the time and ability to be sent to Harvard PMD courses or The Kennedy School of Government as example began to lose their contact with the reality of their profession. Which is to deter and attack and kill adversaries as deemed appropriate by the civilians running the government, who in principle are elected by the people. This post is nice and well written, but is emblematic of the problem any American must understand. Your professional military is not equipped at the most senior levels to tell you the truth. A. We are not ready for any kind of peer foe fight. B. We are under strength and need to reconstitute the military services with soldiers, sailors, air men/women and Marines who are fit, motivated and capable. With that goes the senior leadership role in making sure those in uniform live in healthy living conditions, have healthy food and can literally afford to be in the military as a profession. If a case in point need be made about how bad the senior leadership is, look no further than the Chief of Naval Operations, On her watch most recently, the USS Gettysburg freshly reconfigured with a $600 million dollar air defense system shot down a returning FA/18, missed the second plane aka the wingman and only with great luck the two man crew were not killed aboard the FA/18, that crashed into the Red Sea, That in a different era, like 20 years ago would have the CNO’s resignation on the Secretary of the Navy’s desk. Nope. Fast forward the USS Harry Truman CVN 78 collided with a merchant vessel, damaging it enough to require it to come off the line for repairs. That event 20 years would have had the CNO’s resignation on the SecNav’s desk. But, no. Nothing to see here, a fighter jet here and an aircraft carrier there, no regard to the fact the merchant vessel with a cargo of properly prepared fertilizer could get close enough to the CVN to blow it to kingdom come, and the CNO wasn’t going anywhere, until….the SecDef said enough, you’re incompetent so you’re done. It didn’t matter that she was a woman, or a man; in this case the CNO was just flatly incompetent and did not inspire the trust and confidence of her subordinates or that of her superiors. Out you go. More coming. Do not be surprised to see a bunch of full colonels and or Navy Captains filling 1 and 2 star posts and some 2 and 3 stars coming out of retirement to fill 3 and 4 star posts and an overall reduction in the number of flag officers in total in our armed services. Stuff is getting real and the fools along with their ships are going the way of quail.
I know there have been horrendous military blunders in both peace and war times, and I know ships' captains have sometimes been held responsible. But I don't recall a CNO resigning over such an incident, as you describe. Can you point us to an example?
Halsey got 4% of his fleet and 800 people killed in a hurricane because he was an idiot and he got promoted. Patton lost 500 men trying to rescue his own son-in-law 80 miles behind enemy lines and nothing happened, so no, a CNO would not resign because a carrier had a fender bender
And don’t even get me started on MacArthur
*Halsey sailed 3rd Fleet into two typhoons.
I would direct any and all to senator Tom Cotton’s report on the status of the surface navy now several years old. Things have not gotten better. If you consider a CVN 1093 feet long with billions of dollars of equipment on board, a hot nuclear reactor, roughly 5,000 souls aboard colliding with a merchant vessel in and around contested waters a ‘fender bender” than indeed we are a lost navy. It was not the amount the damage physically rather the lack of discipline across the Navy and for that matter the services in general that are part of the problem. Either we have a military and military culture reporting to and following the lawful orders of the civilian commander in chief and upholding the oath of office or we are and have something different going on. Not wishing to just pick on the Navy, as a Marine Infantry Officer circa 1978-1982 watching the current Commandant of the Marine Corps and his immediate predecessor severely damage the USMC’s ability to carry out Title X statutory mandates, it is a shocking scene. Basically telling congress what missions the Corps will undertake and those which it will not, because these generals got a wild idea up their backside and want to do something different. After 5 years and divesting to invest in the new idea, they have absolutely nothing to show for it. It would not surprise the writer if DOGE and the SecDef and SecNav conclude that the best that can be done for the Country and Corps is to dissolve the Corps and move the assets to the Army and Air Force. Thus saving $38/$39 Billion a year.
My point was and is not that there direct examples of the CNO resigning over a typhoon or collision, it is their duty and the honor of their post and responsibility that should drive the decision to resign. Meaning, they cannot be on the bridge of every Naval vessel in the fleets (though some micromanaging Admirals try) it is saying I am the direct representative of our Navy and its not going in the right direction, we need a change. Don’t try staying CEO of a publicly traded company after post losing results a couple of losing quarters in a row. By the way, the SecNav doesn’t have to accept the resignation. No one wants to take responsibility, filthy black mold ridden living quarters, substandard chow, poor pay, not my job man say the men and women with the stars. If people don’t the enlisted and junior officers don’t see the hypocrisy and substandard leadership at the flag level guess again. New flash they are the ones doing the work. They want leaders with substance, not mushy bureaucrats that wear a uniform and are quasi civilian military “professionals.”
I haven't read any of the books you cited, nor have I ever served, so I'm certainly at a disadvantage in commenting. Nevertheless, perhaps the view of a civilian Trump supporter is worth considering.
The US military hasn't exactly covered itself in glory the past few decades, as it has ignominiously fled Afghanistan after 20 years, and left a smoldering crater of ruin and misery in Iraq, to the benefit of no-one besides Iran. The Congressionally unauthorized (ie illegal) war in Libya was no better, and in many ways worse, as is the current proxy war in Ukraine- largely fought, so far as I can see, so the former President's crack-head son could justify his well compensated stint as a board-member for a Ukrainian energy company despite having no energy or corporate experience, nor even speaking the language in which it's meetings were conducted. No worries on the latter, however, as he never attended any board meetings, so his inability to understand what was said was no obstacle. I only wish I was exaggerating.
Former joint chief-of-staff General Milley is widely reported to have engaged in Sedition during Trump's first term, although I guess we'll never know for sure since he was pre-emptively pardoned by the previous President, father of the aforementioned Burisma board-member.
None of the military branches have hit their recruiting goals in years, and the immediate reason appears to be that military families have lost faith in the service and have begun advising their young men not to serve.
There's more, of course, but the TLDR is that we have a broken military leadership, already politicized, and badly in need of reform. Claiming they deserve the benefit of the doubt is ridiculous. Maybe President Trump's reforms are rash and ill-considered, but I certainly can't justify deferring to a military that has failed so conspicuously for so long.
Stating you haven’t read anything (even tho I talk extensively about the books in the article?) or haven’t served. Than talking about Hunter Biden and Burisma in an article about American civil-military relations? Sorry I will not be considering your view lol
Fair enough. The sentiment is mutual
Thanks! You should subscribe anyways!
'the founder proposed'
Missing word, capitalization