According to the Constitution it would be impeachment.
Maybe this conflict needs to shed the constraints of what is permissible in war. ( of course we aren't technically at War but that's a different topic )
Wrong, we are exactly at war. The Constitution made the President Commander in Chief capable of war. The Founding Fathers change the wording from Congress will "Make War" to "Declare War" for very rational reasons.
Targeting civilian infrastructure is war crime
Please cite your sources and whether the U.S. has agreed.Thanks in advance.
Trump and Hegseth repeatedly have said that power and desalination facilities could be the next targets which would be a War Crime
Please cite your sources and whether the U.S. has agreed.Thanks in advance.
Separating the morality out of the discussion from a practical point of view I would prefer to not cross that line given how many soft targets exist in the US
I do not personally believe that their is vast network of Terror Sleeper Cells in the US but If we start targeting civilian infrastructure The Obvious counter move is for the Ayatollahs to activate any resources they have to target our infrastructure.
Maybe maybe not, however, the insane leaders of the death cult, Islamic Terrorists in charge, have called for activating their sleeper cells.
Iran has potentially sent out "an operational trigger" to activate "sleeper assets" across the globe as the war with the U.S. and Israel escalates according to a report. The U.S. has intercepted encrypted communications believed to have originated in Iran that were sent out following the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a U.S.-Israeli attack on February 28,…
We really need to rewrite our laws concerning libel and slander.
In a report, The New York Times said the removal was related to clashes between George and Hegseth over the latter's decision to single out and block the promotion of four army officers on a list of 29 personnel. Most of the officers on the list are white men, while two blocked by Hegseth are Black, and the other two are women, the Times reported, citing unnamed military officials.
If that statement concerning selection for promotion to General officer is accurate then it is definitely worth considering the excerpt from Steven Baker's interview with the former Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Personnel, Casey Wardynski.
At the 46:21 mark, he speaks directly to the chokehold that the Army Chief of Staff has on General Officer promotions and the refusal of Gen Milley to even let him review the personnel record of a two star that was being nominated for a three star billet as the Deputy G-4. The LTG that worked for Wardynski could not get the record and the Army Vice Chief told Wardynski that it was none of his business. This is what Hegseth is trying to fix. Every three and four star in the Army today is essentially someone that was hand picked to rise to that level by Mark Milley. There are other important insight to the nepotism of the Army Generals' bubba network and the consequences that the Army is dealing with as a result of Milley's corrupt behavior at the 31:28 mark.
This social media post is clearly wrong to attribute the case of Karoline Stancik as a primary reason for George's firing but it does provide a troubling example of Army senior leadership's handling of vaccine injuries to soldiers that they want to disavow and ignore.
Quote:
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Forces Army Chief of Staff to Step Down Over Ignored COVID Vaccine Injury
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has demanded that Army Chief of Staff General Randy George step down and retire immediately.
A young soldier wounded by the Biden-era mRNA COVID vaccine says General George ignored her desperate case until investigative reporting forced military records into the light.
Specialist Karoline Stancik was just 24 when the shot hit her hard. She suffered three heart attacks, a mini-stroke, and severe POTS that left doctors no choice but to implant a pacemaker in her chest.
During the Biden administration, the Army wrongly kicked Stancik off orders and stripped her of military medical insurance, leaving her to pay more than $90,000 out of pocket while fighting for her life.
An October 2023 Army memo later declared her condition "Line of Duty" and pointed straight to research linking her cardiac damage to the mRNA vaccine.
If handling of COVID vaccine administration is really part of the grounds for his firing, he might not be the last service
Thank you for the information much appreciated,
We really need to rewrite our laws concerning libel and slander.
You seem to be waiting for the "gotcha" trap to spring before you share your superior knowledge about the promotion process. Why don't you just proceed with the lecture and stop putting words in other's mouths?
BTW - I have a couple of extended family members that have shared their thoughts on the supposed "merit based promotions" process. Anything above the level of colonel is mostly political, but it's military political with some civilian political influence vs strictly civilian political. Neither has had any trouble finding consulting work in their respective areas of expertise.
"Say you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process without saying you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process."
Anyone who says promotion to GO is political…is butchering the word beyond all belief. There are absolutely internal politics (ie Combat Arms over support) but in order to be a GO you have basically had to kill it at every single level.
They had to be stratified in the top of their BDE or WG command tour…they have to be in the right jobs…getting GO is a lot of luck and timing but all merit.
The ones who say it's all politics are the ones who got passed over for being mid.
Now do Mark Milley, and Lloyd Austin. LOL.
Pointing to Milley and Austin like they're evidence the system is broken is a strange argument. You don't get two outliers and call that analysis of a pipeline that filters thousands down to a handful.
The reality is the opposite…the system is brutally selective. By the time you're even in the conversation for GO, you've already survived multiple command gates, stratifications, and years of performance sorting. Timing, job sequencing, and yes, internal politics matter…but that's not the same thing as saying merit doesn't.
If anything, citing two people who made it through that gauntlet kind of proves the bar exists. Using Milley and Austin as proof the system is broken is like pointing at Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russel then concluding football doesn't evaluate talent.
You seem to be waiting for the "gotcha" trap to spring before you share your superior knowledge about the promotion process. Why don't you just proceed with the lecture and stop putting words in other's mouths?
BTW - I have a couple of extended family members that have shared their thoughts on the supposed "merit based promotions" process. Anything above the level of colonel is mostly political, but it's military political with some civilian political influence vs strictly civilian political. Neither has had any trouble finding consulting work in their respective areas of expertise.
"Say you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process without saying you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process."
Anyone who says promotion to GO is political…is butchering the word beyond all belief. There are absolutely internal politics (ie Combat Arms over support) but in order to be a GO you have basically had to kill it at every single level.
They had to be stratified in the top of their BDE or WG command tour…they have to be in the right jobs…getting GO is a lot of luck and timing but all merit.
The ones who say it's all politics are the ones who got passed over for being mid.
Now do Mark Milley, and Lloyd Austin. LOL.
Pointing to Milley and Austin like they're evidence the system is broken is a strange argument. You don't get two outliers and call that analysis of a pipeline that filters thousands down to a handful.
The reality is the opposite…the system is brutally selective. By the time you're even in the conversation for GO, you've already survived multiple command gates, stratifications, and years of performance sorting. Timing, job sequencing, and yes, internal politics matter…but that's not the same thing as saying merit doesn't.
If anything, citing two people who made it through that gauntlet kind of proves the bar exists. Using Milley and Austin as proof the system is broken is like pointing at Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russel then concluding football doesn't evaluate talent.
So what you're saying is, you're ok with politicians picking and choosing who gets promoted…over that of uniformed military.
Because if you're good with that in Republican Admin…I assume your good with that during President AOCs term.
Yes I am OK with that. Our Constitution was written specifically giving elected officials this key authority.
Want to address the issue then blame our educational system and the Democratic Party leadership policy of open borders allowing criminals and terrorists into the country.
We really need to rewrite our laws concerning libel and slander.
You seem to be waiting for the "gotcha" trap to spring before you share your superior knowledge about the promotion process. Why don't you just proceed with the lecture and stop putting words in other's mouths?
BTW - I have a couple of extended family members that have shared their thoughts on the supposed "merit based promotions" process. Anything above the level of colonel is mostly political, but it's military political with some civilian political influence vs strictly civilian political. Neither has had any trouble finding consulting work in their respective areas of expertise.
"Say you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process without saying you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process."
Anyone who says promotion to GO is political…is butchering the word beyond all belief. There are absolutely internal politics (ie Combat Arms over support) but in order to be a GO you have basically had to kill it at every single level.
They had to be stratified in the top of their BDE or WG command tour…they have to be in the right jobs…getting GO is a lot of luck and timing but all merit.
The ones who say it's all politics are the ones who got passed over for being mid.
Now do Mark Milley, and Lloyd Austin. LOL.
Pointing to Milley and Austin like they're evidence the system is broken is a strange argument. You don't get two outliers and call that analysis of a pipeline that filters thousands down to a handful.
The reality is the opposite…the system is brutally selective. By the time you're even in the conversation for GO, you've already survived multiple command gates, stratifications, and years of performance sorting. Timing, job sequencing, and yes, internal politics matter…but that's not the same thing as saying merit doesn't.
If anything, citing two people who made it through that gauntlet kind of proves the bar exists. Using Milley and Austin as proof the system is broken is like pointing at Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russel then concluding football doesn't evaluate talent.
Neither were merit base promotions beyond O-9.
Not merit-based beyond O-9' is a wild take. You don't just stumble into four stars. By that point you have already cleared multiple command gates, been stratified at the top repeatedly, and survived decades of brutal sorting.
What changes at that level is not that merit disappears. It is that everyone left is already elite, so now you are choosing among the top one percent based on experience, timing, and what the job actually requires. That is not a broken system, that is what selection looks like at the very top.
If your argument is that senior picks involve judgment and some politics, sure. If your argument is that the system is broken because two guys you do not like made it, that is not analysis, that is just coping.
So what you're saying is, you're ok with politicians picking and choosing who gets promoted…over that of uniformed military.
Because if you're good with that in Republican Admin…I assume your good with that during President AOCs term.
Yes I am OK with that. Our Constitution was written specifically giving elected officials this key authority.
Want to address the issue then blame our educational system and the Democratic Party leadership policy of open borders allowing criminals and terrorists into the country.
So…for clarity…you want general officers who are political…? As in actively Republican or actively Democrat?
You seem to be waiting for the "gotcha" trap to spring before you share your superior knowledge about the promotion process. Why don't you just proceed with the lecture and stop putting words in other's mouths?
BTW - I have a couple of extended family members that have shared their thoughts on the supposed "merit based promotions" process. Anything above the level of colonel is mostly political, but it's military political with some civilian political influence vs strictly civilian political. Neither has had any trouble finding consulting work in their respective areas of expertise.
"Say you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process without saying you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process."
Anyone who says promotion to GO is political…is butchering the word beyond all belief. There are absolutely internal politics (ie Combat Arms over support) but in order to be a GO you have basically had to kill it at every single level.
They had to be stratified in the top of their BDE or WG command tour…they have to be in the right jobs…getting GO is a lot of luck and timing but all merit.
The ones who say it's all politics are the ones who got passed over for being mid.
It's incredibly naive to suggest that politics aren't involved in the selection and promotion of general officers. We've seen this very clearly for at least a couple decades. Obama selected many who would advance his political objectives with the military, including DEI and other initiatives that really had nothing to do with military merit.
Trump is doing something similar. You could argue he is cleaning up the non-merit mess from Obama and Biden, but I have no doubt he's including some political priorities of his own.
Another data point... just look at all of these ribbons and medals that decorate the chests of prominent military officers. Many of them are for nothing other than kissing the ass of political generals and civilians. It is so obvious that even a blind man can see it.
I'm all for making military promotions dependent on merit only, not your political party, gender, race, or sexual orientation. I feel the same way about promotions within the general business world. Our society swung really hard to non-merit, DEI appointments from 2000 to 2025. It feels like it's coming back toward the other direction a bit, which is a very good thing.
Nope, they want people who follow lawful orders presented through a chain of command.
This all just looks sus, and a pattern with this admin, thus my comment.
HTH
Who said,"General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we're going to attack, I'm going to call you ahead of time. It's not going to be a surprise," the authors wrote that Milley told Li in one of their conversations."
How did this treasomist miscreant get his command.
We really need to rewrite our laws concerning libel and slander.
You seem to be waiting for the "gotcha" trap to spring before you share your superior knowledge about the promotion process. Why don't you just proceed with the lecture and stop putting words in other's mouths?
BTW - I have a couple of extended family members that have shared their thoughts on the supposed "merit based promotions" process. Anything above the level of colonel is mostly political, but it's military political with some civilian political influence vs strictly civilian political. Neither has had any trouble finding consulting work in their respective areas of expertise.
"Say you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process without saying you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process."
Anyone who says promotion to GO is political…is butchering the word beyond all belief. There are absolutely internal politics (ie Combat Arms over support) but in order to be a GO you have basically had to kill it at every single level.
They had to be stratified in the top of their BDE or WG command tour…they have to be in the right jobs…getting GO is a lot of luck and timing but all merit.
The ones who say it's all politics are the ones who got passed over for being mid.
It's incredibly naive to suggest that politics aren't involved in the selection and promotion of general officers. We've seen this very clearly for at least a couple decades. Obama selected many who would advance his political objectives with the military, including DEI and other initiatives that really had nothing to do with military merit.
Trump is doing something similar. You could argue he is cleaning up the non-merit mess from Obama and Biden, but I have no doubt he's including some political priorities of his own.
Another data point... just look at all of these ribbons and medals that decorate the chests of prominent military officers. Many of them are for nothing other than kissing the ass of political generals and civilians. It is so obvious that even a blind man can see it.
I'm all for making military promotions dependent on merit only, not your political party, gender, race, or sexual orientation. I feel the same way about promotions within the general business world. Our society swung really hard to non-merit, DEI appointments from 2000 to 2025. It feels like it's coming back toward the other direction a bit, which is a very good thing.
You're collapsing the very last step of the process and pretending that's the whole thing.
Here's how it actually works. The services run centralized promotion boards made up of senior generals. Before those boards convene, civilian leadership provides guidance on what attributes they want emphasized. That can be things like operational experience, joint exposure, or specific career fields. That guidance does not pick people. It frames what the board should value.
The board then reviews records across the entire eligible population. Performance reports, command history, stratifications, key billets, education. These are people who have already been filtered for 20 plus years through command selection boards and top block stratifications. The board scores and ranks them and produces a list.
That list then goes up through the service secretary, SecDef, and ultimately the Senate. At the three and four star level, assignments are tied to specific billets, so civilian leadership has more say in who fills which job. But they are choosing from a pool the system already screened as top tier.
So no, politicians are not sitting there picking random officers or promoting people who have not already proven themselves repeatedly. They set broad priorities. The generals on the board do the selecting.
If your takeaway from that is 'not merit based,' then you are ignoring about two decades of merit filtering that got them there in the first place.
So what you're saying is, you're ok with politicians picking and choosing who gets promoted…over that of uniformed military.
Because if you're good with that in Republican Admin…I assume your good with that during President AOCs term.
Yes I am OK with that. Our Constitution was written specifically giving elected officials this key authority.
Want to address the issue then blame our educational system and the Democratic Party leadership policy of open borders allowing criminals and terrorists into the country.
So…for clarity…you want general officers who are political…? As in actively Republican or actively Democrat?
I want the Constitution to be followed. Sorry you can't believe our Founding Fathers wanted elected officials commanding the military.
We really need to rewrite our laws concerning libel and slander.
You seem to be waiting for the "gotcha" trap to spring before you share your superior knowledge about the promotion process. Why don't you just proceed with the lecture and stop putting words in other's mouths?
BTW - I have a couple of extended family members that have shared their thoughts on the supposed "merit based promotions" process. Anything above the level of colonel is mostly political, but it's military political with some civilian political influence vs strictly civilian political. Neither has had any trouble finding consulting work in their respective areas of expertise.
"Say you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process without saying you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process."
Anyone who says promotion to GO is political…is butchering the word beyond all belief. There are absolutely internal politics (ie Combat Arms over support) but in order to be a GO you have basically had to kill it at every single level.
They had to be stratified in the top of their BDE or WG command tour…they have to be in the right jobs…getting GO is a lot of luck and timing but all merit.
The ones who say it's all politics are the ones who got passed over for being mid.
It's incredibly naive to suggest that politics aren't involved in the selection and promotion of general officers. We've seen this very clearly for at least a couple decades. Obama selected many who would advance his political objectives with the military, including DEI and other initiatives that really had nothing to do with military merit.
Trump is doing something similar. You could argue he is cleaning up the non-merit mess from Obama and Biden, but I have no doubt he's including some political priorities of his own.
Another data point... just look at all of these ribbons and medals that decorate the chests of prominent military officers. Many of them are for nothing other than kissing the ass of political generals and civilians. It is so obvious that even a blind man can see it.
I'm all for making military promotions dependent on merit only, not your political party, gender, race, or sexual orientation. I feel the same way about promotions within the general business world. Our society swung really hard to non-merit, DEI appointments from 2000 to 2025. It feels like it's coming back toward the other direction a bit, which is a very good thing.
You're collapsing the very last step of the process and pretending that's the whole thing.
Here's how it actually works. The services run centralized promotion boards made up of senior generals. Before those boards convene, civilian leadership provides guidance on what attributes they want emphasized. That can be things like operational experience, joint exposure, or specific career fields. That guidance does not pick people. It frames what the board should value.
The board then reviews records across the entire eligible population. Performance reports, command history, stratifications, key billets, education. These are people who have already been filtered for 20 plus years through command selection boards and top block stratifications. The board scores and ranks them and produces a list.
That list then goes up through the service secretary, SecDef, and ultimately the Senate. At the three and four star level, assignments are tied to specific billets, so civilian leadership has more say in who fills which job. But they are choosing from a pool the system already screened as top tier.
So no, politicians are not sitting there picking random officers or promoting people who have not already proven themselves repeatedly. They set broad priorities. The generals on the board do the selecting.
If your takeaway from that is 'not merit based,' then you are ignoring about two decades of merit filtering that got them there in the first place.
I'm not saying there's no merit involved, but it obviously has mattered much less over the past couple decades, coupled with political factors playing a much bigger role. It's super-obvious. I'm not an officer in the military, so I have no personal stake in this debate. I'm just calling a spade a spade, and it's happened under both D and R administrations.
So what you're saying is, you're ok with politicians picking and choosing who gets promoted…over that of uniformed military.
Because if you're good with that in Republican Admin…I assume your good with that during President AOCs term.
Yes I am OK with that. Our Constitution was written specifically giving elected officials this key authority.
Want to address the issue then blame our educational system and the Democratic Party leadership policy of open borders allowing criminals and terrorists into the country.
So…for clarity…you want general officers who are political…? As in actively Republican or actively Democrat?
I want the Constitution to be followed. Sorry you can't believe our Founding Fathers wanted elected officials commanding the military.
You're conflating two very different things.
Yes, the Constitution establishes civilian control of the military. The U.S. Constitution puts the President as Commander in Chief and gives Congress oversight. No one is disputing that.
What it does not say is that general officers should be partisan actors or selected for political loyalty. In fact, the entire professional officer corps is built to be apolitical and execute lawful civilian direction regardless of party.
The system reflects that.
Civilian leadership provides broad guidance to promotion boards on what attributes are needed. Boards of senior officers then evaluate records and select from a population that has already been filtered for decades on performance and command. By the time names go forward, you are looking at officers who have consistently ranked at the top of their peers.
Civilian control means elected leaders set policy and choose among qualified candidates. It does not mean turning the general officer corps into partisan extensions of whichever party is in power.
If that's the direction you're arguing for, that's not 'following the Constitution.' That's undermining the very norm that keeps the military professional and trusted in the first place…is that something you want???
That's exactly what hasn't been true for the U.S. military, and it's why it's one of the most trusted institutions in the country.
Turn it into 'to the victors go the spoils' and you don't just tweak the system, you break it. You trade professionalism for loyalty tests, and once that line is crossed, it does not come back.
That road doesn't end in a stronger military. It ends somewhere much darker.
You seem to be waiting for the "gotcha" trap to spring before you share your superior knowledge about the promotion process. Why don't you just proceed with the lecture and stop putting words in other's mouths?
BTW - I have a couple of extended family members that have shared their thoughts on the supposed "merit based promotions" process. Anything above the level of colonel is mostly political, but it's military political with some civilian political influence vs strictly civilian political. Neither has had any trouble finding consulting work in their respective areas of expertise.
"Say you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process without saying you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process."
Anyone who says promotion to GO is political…is butchering the word beyond all belief. There are absolutely internal politics (ie Combat Arms over support) but in order to be a GO you have basically had to kill it at every single level.
They had to be stratified in the top of their BDE or WG command tour…they have to be in the right jobs…getting GO is a lot of luck and timing but all merit.
The ones who say it's all politics are the ones who got passed over for being mid.
"Mostly politics" does not mean "it's all politics". I prefaced my argument to anything above the level of colonel. You don't get to that level without merit, so everybody will have significant expertise and merit. It's the promotions beyond the level of colonel that are "mostly politics".
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I've worked for GO/FOs from one to four stars on more than a few occasions. Most of them are great leaders and they certainly did the right things to get to their positions...but to go to the mat for how overwhelmingly merit-based the path to GO/FO (especially from two star up to four) is...is bonkers. The politics start way before GO/FO (ever heard of unwritten "do no harm" policies in performance evals/stratifications??) and grow exponentially once you are in the real pool for O-7.
It's overwhelmingly political from inside the GO/FO ranks picking winners and losers (outside the board process), to getting Senate buy-in, and to meeting the litmus test of the current Presidential admin at the time. Lots of choreography and orchestration over years to "make" a three/four star...the boards are almost a formality. Being politically palatable is a key aspect to making it that far; to think otherwise is looking at the process through rose-colored glasses.
Thankfully, the majority of the highest ranking people in the military are truly good and sometimes brilliant in the roles they fill. It isn't like the four stars want a crappier military - they groom folks to fit their idea of what the future Service/force needs in charge. A lot of good and brilliant people don't make it that far for political reasons, too (and some don't want to put up with the politics of it, even if they are in the pipeline...because politics matter a great deal in wearing stars on your uniform).
I was an O-3 in the Air Force and one of my best friends just made full bird Colonel in the Maryland ANG
I have no problem with a political administration promoting officers who will enact the priorities of the administration.
that is why we have a Constitution which lays out that the civilian elected officials are supreme over military commanders.
You were a Captain…so you should actually know better.
We didn't swear an oath to a party, or an administration, or a set of policy preferences.
We swore to support and defend the Constitution, period.
Enlisted swear to obey lawful orders. Officers swear to faithfully discharge their duties. Neither oath says anything about aligning promotions to political loyalty.
Civilian control means we execute lawful orders from elected leadership. It does not mean reshaping the officer corps into a partisan instrument.
You start going down that road, and you're not strengthening the Constitution you're talking about.
You're eroding the very thing you and I raised our right hand to protect.
I was an O-3 in the Air Force and one of my best friends just made full bird Colonel in the Maryland ANG
I have no problem with a political administration promoting officers who will enact the priorities of the administration.
that is why we have a Constitution which lays out that the civilian elected officials are supreme over military commanders.
I have a huge problem with military promotions based on political loyalty.
Whether it's politics or DEI, that's how you evolve to an incompetent organization.
It should be merit, 100%.
Even that can be subjective, but politics need to stay out.
At the civilian leadership level, Secretary, Under-secretary, etc., it's totally understood those will be political appointments. The military leaders also have to understand they must carry out the orders and direction from civilian leadership. They can resist smartly and try to change the mind of their civilian bosses, but when a decision is made they have to carry it out or resign so that another leader can be appointed who will execute the order. Very simple, really.
I've worked for GO/FOs from one to four stars on more than a few occasions. Most of them are great leaders and they certainly did the right things to get to their positions...but to go to the mat for how overwhelmingly merit-based the path to GO/FO (especially from two star up to four) is...is bonkers. The politics start way before GO/FO (ever heard of unwritten "do no harm" policies in performance evals/stratifications??) and grow exponentially once you are in the real pool for O-7.
It's overwhelmingly political from inside the GO/FO ranks picking winners and losers (outside the board process), to getting Senate buy-in, and to meeting the litmus test of the current Presidential admin at the time. Lots of choreography and orchestration over years to "make" a three/four star...the boards are almost a formality. Being politically palatable is a key aspect to making it that far; to think otherwise is looking at the process through rose-colored glasses.
Thankfully, the majority of the highest ranking people in the military are truly good and sometimes brilliant in the roles they fill. It isn't like the four stars want a crappier military - they groom folks to fit their idea of what the future Service/force needs in charge. A lot of good and brilliant people don't make it that far for political reasons, too (and some don't want to put up with the politics of it, even if they are in the pipeline...because politics matter a great deal in wearing stars on your uniform).
Im mainly railing against the idea that getting to O-8 isn't merit based…and that somehow it's all politics.
There is absolute SERVICE and Interpersonal politics involved (right jobs, who knows who) blah blah…
But I do acknowledge that O-9 and O-10 is a very different beast…but everyone who got there was pretty damn competent (exceptions do exist).
I was an O-3 in the Air Force and one of my best friends just made full bird Colonel in the Maryland ANG
I have no problem with a political administration promoting officers who will enact the priorities of the administration.
that is why we have a Constitution which lays out that the civilian elected officials are supreme over military commanders.
I have a huge problem with military promotions based on political loyalty.
Whether it's politics or DEI, that's how you evolve to an incompetent organization.
It should be merit, 100%.
Even that can be subjective, but politics need to stay out.
At the civilian leadership level, Secretary, Under-secretary, etc., it's totally understood those will be political appointments. The military leaders also have to understand they must carry out the orders and direction from civilian leadership. They can resist smartly and try to change the mind of their civilian bosses, but when a decision is made they have to carry it out or resign so that another leader can be appointed who will execute the order. Very simple, really.
You seem to be waiting for the "gotcha" trap to spring before you share your superior knowledge about the promotion process. Why don't you just proceed with the lecture and stop putting words in other's mouths?
BTW - I have a couple of extended family members that have shared their thoughts on the supposed "merit based promotions" process. Anything above the level of colonel is mostly political, but it's military political with some civilian political influence vs strictly civilian political. Neither has had any trouble finding consulting work in their respective areas of expertise.
"Say you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process without saying you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process."
Anyone who says promotion to GO is political…is butchering the word beyond all belief. There are absolutely internal politics (ie Combat Arms over support) but in order to be a GO you have basically had to kill it at every single level.
They had to be stratified in the top of their BDE or WG command tour…they have to be in the right jobs…getting GO is a lot of luck and timing but all merit.
The ones who say it's all politics are the ones who got passed over for being mid.
Now do Mark Milley, and Lloyd Austin. LOL.
Pointing to Milley and Austin like they're evidence the system is broken is a strange argument. You don't get two outliers and call that analysis of a pipeline that filters thousands down to a handful.
The reality is the opposite…the system is brutally selective. By the time you're even in the conversation for GO, you've already survived multiple command gates, stratifications, and years of performance sorting. Timing, job sequencing, and yes, internal politics matter…but that's not the same thing as saying merit doesn't.
If anything, citing two people who made it through that gauntlet kind of proves the bar exists. Using Milley and Austin as proof the system is broken is like pointing at Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russel then concluding football doesn't evaluate talent.
Neither were merit base promotions beyond O-9.
Not merit-based beyond O-9' is a wild take. You don't just stumble into four stars. By that point you have already cleared multiple command gates, been stratified at the top repeatedly, and survived decades of brutal sorting.
What changes at that level is not that merit disappears. It is that everyone left is already elite, so now you are choosing among the top one percent based on experience, timing, and what the job actually requires. That is not a broken system, that is what selection looks like at the very top.
If your argument is that senior picks involve judgment and some politics, sure. If your argument is that the system is broken because two guys you do not like made it, that is not analysis, that is just coping.
I have not kept track of the politicized O-6 and up but many have been witnessed infesting the ranks. I know for a fact that timing is a huge factor that eliminates many meritorious candidates. Timing could be the most prominent deciding factor below O-6.
But other than you repeating the promotion manual verbiage and claim the process is not tainted by politics is comical.
Everyone wants a merit based selection process for promotions. Its not clear if the political process internal and external to the system we have experienced can be eliminated.
You seem to be waiting for the "gotcha" trap to spring before you share your superior knowledge about the promotion process. Why don't you just proceed with the lecture and stop putting words in other's mouths?
BTW - I have a couple of extended family members that have shared their thoughts on the supposed "merit based promotions" process. Anything above the level of colonel is mostly political, but it's military political with some civilian political influence vs strictly civilian political. Neither has had any trouble finding consulting work in their respective areas of expertise.
"Say you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process without saying you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process."
Anyone who says promotion to GO is political…is butchering the word beyond all belief. There are absolutely internal politics (ie Combat Arms over support) but in order to be a GO you have basically had to kill it at every single level.
They had to be stratified in the top of their BDE or WG command tour…they have to be in the right jobs…getting GO is a lot of luck and timing but all merit.
The ones who say it's all politics are the ones who got passed over for being mid.
Now do Mark Milley, and Lloyd Austin. LOL.
Pointing to Milley and Austin like they're evidence the system is broken is a strange argument. You don't get two outliers and call that analysis of a pipeline that filters thousands down to a handful.
The reality is the opposite…the system is brutally selective. By the time you're even in the conversation for GO, you've already survived multiple command gates, stratifications, and years of performance sorting. Timing, job sequencing, and yes, internal politics matter…but that's not the same thing as saying merit doesn't.
If anything, citing two people who made it through that gauntlet kind of proves the bar exists. Using Milley and Austin as proof the system is broken is like pointing at Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russel then concluding football doesn't evaluate talent.
Neither were merit base promotions beyond O-9.
Not merit-based beyond O-9' is a wild take. You don't just stumble into four stars. By that point you have already cleared multiple command gates, been stratified at the top repeatedly, and survived decades of brutal sorting.
What changes at that level is not that merit disappears. It is that everyone left is already elite, so now you are choosing among the top one percent based on experience, timing, and what the job actually requires. That is not a broken system, that is what selection looks like at the very top.
If your argument is that senior picks involve judgment and some politics, sure. If your argument is that the system is broken because two guys you do not like made it, that is not analysis, that is just coping.
I have not kept track of the politicized O-6 and up but many have been witnessed infesting the ranks. I know for a fact that timing is a huge factor that eliminates many meritorious candidates. Timing could be the most prominent deciding factor below O-6.
But other than you repeating the promotion manual verbiage and claim the process is not tainted by politics is comical.
Everyone wants a merit based selection process for promotions. Its not clear if the political process internal and external to the system we have experienced can be eliminated.
Dude luck and timing is absolutely a real thing.
Right guy has the right command at the right time. Happens all the time…and yea some people get left behind.
I had a command tour where for six months it felt like every subordinate decided to **** up somehow and I thought I was doneskis (I survived).
But luck and timing effects everyone regardless of background…
My big recommendation do not let what you see in the media pollute the reality of what's really going on.
You seem to be waiting for the "gotcha" trap to spring before you share your superior knowledge about the promotion process. Why don't you just proceed with the lecture and stop putting words in other's mouths?
BTW - I have a couple of extended family members that have shared their thoughts on the supposed "merit based promotions" process. Anything above the level of colonel is mostly political, but it's military political with some civilian political influence vs strictly civilian political. Neither has had any trouble finding consulting work in their respective areas of expertise.
"Say you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process without saying you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process."
Anyone who says promotion to GO is political…is butchering the word beyond all belief. There are absolutely internal politics (ie Combat Arms over support) but in order to be a GO you have basically had to kill it at every single level.
They had to be stratified in the top of their BDE or WG command tour…they have to be in the right jobs…getting GO is a lot of luck and timing but all merit.
The ones who say it's all politics are the ones who got passed over for being mid.
Now do Mark Milley, and Lloyd Austin. LOL.
Pointing to Milley and Austin like they're evidence the system is broken is a strange argument. You don't get two outliers and call that analysis of a pipeline that filters thousands down to a handful.
The reality is the opposite…the system is brutally selective. By the time you're even in the conversation for GO, you've already survived multiple command gates, stratifications, and years of performance sorting. Timing, job sequencing, and yes, internal politics matter…but that's not the same thing as saying merit doesn't.
If anything, citing two people who made it through that gauntlet kind of proves the bar exists. Using Milley and Austin as proof the system is broken is like pointing at Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russel then concluding football doesn't evaluate talent.
Neither were merit base promotions beyond O-9.
Not merit-based beyond O-9' is a wild take. You don't just stumble into four stars. By that point you have already cleared multiple command gates, been stratified at the top repeatedly, and survived decades of brutal sorting.
What changes at that level is not that merit disappears. It is that everyone left is already elite, so now you are choosing among the top one percent based on experience, timing, and what the job actually requires. That is not a broken system, that is what selection looks like at the very top.
If your argument is that senior picks involve judgment and some politics, sure. If your argument is that the system is broken because two guys you do not like made it, that is not analysis, that is just coping.
I have not kept track of the politicized O-6 and up but many have been witnessed infesting the ranks. I know for a fact that timing is a huge factor that eliminates many meritorious candidates. Timing could be the most prominent deciding factor below O-6.
But other than you repeating the promotion manual verbiage and claim the process is not tainted by politics is comical.
Everyone wants a merit based selection process for promotions. Its not clear if the political process internal and external to the system we have experienced can be eliminated.
Dude luck and timing is absolutely a real thing.
Right guy has the right command at the right time. Happens all the time…and yea some people get left behind.
I had a command tour where for six months it felt like every subordinate decided to **** up somehow and I thought I was doneskis (I survived).
But luck and timing effects everyone regardless of background…
My big recommendation do not let what you see in the media pollute the reality of what's really going on.
Timing. I understand. Thanks for agreeing with that fact.
Otherwise, all politicized officers we should ignore. LOL.
You seem to be waiting for the "gotcha" trap to spring before you share your superior knowledge about the promotion process. Why don't you just proceed with the lecture and stop putting words in other's mouths?
BTW - I have a couple of extended family members that have shared their thoughts on the supposed "merit based promotions" process. Anything above the level of colonel is mostly political, but it's military political with some civilian political influence vs strictly civilian political. Neither has had any trouble finding consulting work in their respective areas of expertise.
"Say you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process without saying you don't know anything about the General Officer promotion process."
Anyone who says promotion to GO is political…is butchering the word beyond all belief. There are absolutely internal politics (ie Combat Arms over support) but in order to be a GO you have basically had to kill it at every single level.
They had to be stratified in the top of their BDE or WG command tour…they have to be in the right jobs…getting GO is a lot of luck and timing but all merit.
The ones who say it's all politics are the ones who got passed over for being mid.
Now do Mark Milley, and Lloyd Austin. LOL.
Pointing to Milley and Austin like they're evidence the system is broken is a strange argument. You don't get two outliers and call that analysis of a pipeline that filters thousands down to a handful.
The reality is the opposite…the system is brutally selective. By the time you're even in the conversation for GO, you've already survived multiple command gates, stratifications, and years of performance sorting. Timing, job sequencing, and yes, internal politics matter…but that's not the same thing as saying merit doesn't.
If anything, citing two people who made it through that gauntlet kind of proves the bar exists. Using Milley and Austin as proof the system is broken is like pointing at Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russel then concluding football doesn't evaluate talent.
Neither were merit base promotions beyond O-9.
Not merit-based beyond O-9' is a wild take. You don't just stumble into four stars. By that point you have already cleared multiple command gates, been stratified at the top repeatedly, and survived decades of brutal sorting.
What changes at that level is not that merit disappears. It is that everyone left is already elite, so now you are choosing among the top one percent based on experience, timing, and what the job actually requires. That is not a broken system, that is what selection looks like at the very top.
If your argument is that senior picks involve judgment and some politics, sure. If your argument is that the system is broken because two guys you do not like made it, that is not analysis, that is just coping.
I have not kept track of the politicized O-6 and up but many have been witnessed infesting the ranks. I know for a fact that timing is a huge factor that eliminates many meritorious candidates. Timing could be the most prominent deciding factor below O-6.
But other than you repeating the promotion manual verbiage and claim the process is not tainted by politics is comical.
Everyone wants a merit based selection process for promotions. Its not clear if the political process internal and external to the system we have experienced can be eliminated.
Dude luck and timing is absolutely a real thing.
Right guy has the right command at the right time. Happens all the time…and yea some people get left behind.
I had a command tour where for six months it felt like every subordinate decided to **** up somehow and I thought I was doneskis (I survived).
But luck and timing effects everyone regardless of background…
My big recommendation do not let what you see in the media pollute the reality of what's really going on.
Timing. I understand. Thanks for agreeing with that fact.
Otherwise, all politicized officers we should ignore. LOL.
I'm not saying ignore them…anyone who wears their politics on their sleeve (left or right)…should be shamed.
My point is don't use those examples to somehow make conclusions about the system.
So what you're saying is, you're ok with politicians picking and choosing who gets promoted…over that of uniformed military.
Because if you're good with that in Republican Admin…I assume your good with that during President AOCs term.
Get out of here with this future libtard administration fear mongering. This has already happened with obama/biden and these removals are an attempt to clean up some of the mess they left in place.
So, what about the GO selection process is the mess?
Please describe in detail.
I'll wait.
You already ignores the explanation. I even started the video at exactly the time that Casey Wardynski is talking specifically about what is wrong with the GO promotion process in the Army.
Since you were too busy to listen to the full video, let's cover why Casey Wardynski's perspective should carry some weight. He is a West Point '77 graduates, retired Colonel, and former Superintendent of the Hunstville Alabama School System where he came in to fix a mess knowing that he would be hated for doing what was necessary in the school system and did it anyway.
In 2019, he was nominated by President Trump to be the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. He reported to Secretary of the Army, Mark Esper (later acting SecDef on January 6, 2021). As ASA M&RA, Wardynski was the senior civilian in charge of oversight of the Army's personnel and promotion system.
In the interview, he explains in detail how the Army Chief of Staff, not only Mark Milley but every other Chief of Staff in at least the past decade, has taken away oversight of General Officer assignments and promotions from the civilian leadership of the Army. By statute, it is the Secretary of the Army who issues precepts for promotion selection boards. The promotion boards are composed of senior officers selecting junior officers for promotion.
When a selection board concludes its work and comes up with the selection list, it is reviewed and endorsed by the Army JAG and then the Chief of Staff before it goes to the Secretary of the Army for Endorsement and then to the Secretary of War and then to the President for Signature. For General Officers, that list must go to the Senate for endorsement/confirmation just like every senior civilian in the Plumb book. However, General Officer Promotion Lists are confirmed en masse instead of with individual confirmation hearings.
As Wardynski explains in the video, the Chief of Staff of the Army refuses to let the ASA or the ASA M&RA to review and ask questions about the selection list. Wardynski's deputy was a three star G-1 who told him, "I don't get to look at General Officer record books, the Chief of Staff manages Generals personally."
That's a huge ****ing problem from the standpoint of civilian oversight of the military. What you frame as politicized meddling in the promotion process is how bad Generals are supposed to be filtered out. The Wardynski interview goes into decades long detail about Milley as an example of a man with no loyalty to anyone but himself was advanced again and again to ultimately become the CJCS and cause horrible damage to not only the Army but the Department of Defense and the United States credibility on the world stage.
Setting Milley aside, the specific example of what is wrong with the CoS having singular oversight and assignment of General Officers is Charles Hamilton. He was a Major General when Wardynski was ASA M&RA and Milley nominated him to a Lieutenant General's billet as Deputy G-4. Wardynski wanted to look at Hamilton's record book and got the stiff arm from Milley and Vice Chief. Hamiliton got the assignment as Deputy G-4 and was later nominated to be the G-4.
Four years later, GEN Hamilton is fired by Sec Army Christine Wormuth because the Army IG has be deluged with evidence that GEN Charles Hamilton inserted himself into the command screening process to get a female Lieutenant Colonel that was his Aide selected for command that would put her on the path to Colonel. The IG had previously investigated an anonymous complaint in 2023 that Hamilton was fraternizing with this female LTC and likely having a sexual relationship with her but could not substantiate that it was an adulterous affair so Hamilton got nothing more than a recommendation for a written reprimand from the Chief of Staff, Gen McConville. After that, Hamilton still had not learned his lesson and was trying to get the woman selected for command and the IG substantiated that he was guilty of inappropriate influence and recommended that he be removed from command by the Secretary of the Army.
Why was it necessary for the Civilian Secretary of the Army to do this? Because the uniformed leadership allowed it to happen without consequence.
This is not just a problem in the Army. About 10 yeas ago, the Marine Corps Brigadier General selection board had to be completely discarded and done again i.e. all the two and three stars that were members of the board had to come back to Quantico to review all of the Colonels in the promotion zone again and select an entirely new list. Every BGen that was slated to move to a new assignment and all of the Colonels that were potentially being promoted and moved were on hold for nine months. It was a huge waste of time and had tremendous ripple effects across the Marine Corps and the Joint staff.
How did this happen? Because one of the Generals (with a common last name) who was a member of the selection board had a family member who was a Colonel in the promotion zone being evaluated by the board and he did not recuse himself or state the potentially prejudicial conflict of interest. The issue was not flagged by the Commandant's JAG, it was not flagged by the Commandant, but it was identified by the Secretary of the Navy's staff when the list came to them for review and someone noticed that a member of the board had a brother or brother in law who was on the selection list.
There are big problems of nepotism and politicization within the General/Flag Officer promotion system on the uniformed side. That the Secretary of Defense steps in the point this out is the check and assertion of civilian authority over the Generals who are selected to serve at the pleasure of the President. Maybe the public ends up learning why Hegseth does not want COL Butler promoted and maybe we don't but the Sec War has the authority to remove senior officers that he does not believe are exercising their authority in the best interests of the Army and the nation.
So what you're saying is, you're ok with politicians picking and choosing who gets promoted…over that of uniformed military.
Because if you're good with that in Republican Admin…I assume your good with that during President AOCs term.
Get out of here with this future libtard administration fear mongering. This has already happened with obama/biden and these removals are an attempt to clean up some of the mess they left in place.
So, what about the GO selection process is the mess?
Please describe in detail.
I'll wait.
You already ignores the explanation. I even started the video at exactly the time that Casey Wardynski is talking specifically about what is wrong with the GO promotion process in the Army.
Since you were too busy to listen to the full video, let's cover why Casey Wardynski's perspective should carry some weight. He is a West Point '77 graduates, retired Colonel, and former Superintendent of the Hunstville Alabama School System where he came in to fix a mess knowing that he would be hated for doing what was necessary in the school system and did it anyway.
In 2019, he was nominated by President Trump to be the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. He reported to Secretary of the Army, Mark Esper (later acting SecDef on January 6, 2021). As ASA M&RA, Wardynski was the senior civilian in charge of oversight of the Army's personnel and promotion system.
In the interview, he explains in detail how the Army Chief of Staff, not only Mark Milley but every other Chief of Staff in at least the past decade, has taken away oversight of General Officer assignments and promotions from the civilian leadership of the Army. By statute, it is the Secretary of the Army who issues precepts for promotion selection boards. The promotion boards are composed of senior officers selecting junior officers for promotion.
When a selection board concludes its work and comes up with the selection list, it is reviewed and endorsed by the Army JAG and then the Chief of Staff before it goes to the Secretary of the Army for Endorsement and then to the Secretary of War and then to the President for Signature. For General Officers, that list must go to the Senate for endorsement/confirmation just like every senior civilian in the Plumb book. However, General Officer Promotion Lists are confirmed en masse instead of with individual confirmation hearings.
As Wardynski explains in the video, the Chief of Staff of the Army refuses to let the ASA or the ASA M&RA to review and ask questions about the selection list. Wardynski's deputy was a three star G-1 who told him, "I don't get to look at General Officer record books, the Chief of Staff manages Generals personally."
That's a huge ****ing problem from the standpoint of civilian oversight of the military. What you frame as politicized meddling in the promotion process is how bad Generals are supposed to be filtered out. The Wardynski interview goes into decades long detail about Milley as an example of a man with no loyalty to anyone but himself was advanced again and again to ultimately become the CJCS and cause horrible damage to not only the Army but the Department of Defense and the United States credibility on the world stage.
Setting Milley aside, the specific example of what is wrong with the CoS having singular oversight and assignment of General Officers is Charles Hamilton. He was a Major General when Wardynski was ASA M&RA and Milley nominated him to a Lieutenant General's billet as Deputy G-4. Wardynski wanted to look at Hamilton's record book and got the stiff arm from Milley and Vice Chief. Hamiliton got the assignment as Deputy G-4 and was later nominated to be the G-4.
Four years later, GEN Hamilton is fired by Sec Army Christine Wormuth because the Army IG has be deluged with evidence that GEN Charles Hamilton inserted himself into the command screening process to get a female Lieutenant Colonel that was his Aide selected for command that would put her on the path to Colonel. The IG had previously investigated an anonymous complaint in 2023 that Hamilton was fraternizing with this female LTC and likely having a sexual relationship with her but could not substantiate that it was an adulterous affair so Hamilton got nothing more than a recommendation for a written reprimand from the Chief of Staff, Gen McConville. After that, Hamilton still had not learned his lesson and was trying to get the woman selected for command and the IG substantiated that he was guilty of inappropriate influence and recommended that he be removed from command by the Secretary of the Army.
Why was it necessary for the Civilian Secretary of the Army to do this? Because the uniformed leadership allowed it to happen without consequence.
This is not just a problem in the Army. About 10 yeas ago, the Marine Corps Brigadier General selection board had to be completely discarded and done again i.e. all the two and three stars that were members of the board had to come back to Quantico to review all of the Colonels in the promotion zone again and select an entirely new list. Every BGen that was slated to move to a new assignment and all of the Colonels that were potentially being promoted and moved were on hold for nine months. It was a huge waste of time and had tremendous ripple effects across the Marine Corps and the Joint staff.
How did this happen? Because one of the Generals (with a common last name) who was a member of the selection board had a family member who was a Colonel in the promotion zone being evaluated by the board and he did not recuse himself or state the potentially prejudicial conflict of interest. The issue was not flagged by the Commandant's JAG, it was not flagged by the Commandant, but it was identified by the Secretary of the Navy's staff when the list came to them for review and someone noticed that a member of the board had a brother or brother in law who was on the selection list.
There are big problems of nepotism and politicization within the General/Flag Officer promotion system on the uniformed side. That the Secretary of Defense steps in the point this out is the check and assertion of civilian authority over the Generals who are selected to serve at the pleasure of the President. Maybe the public ends up learning why Hegseth does not want COL Butler promoted and maybe we don't but the Sec War has the authority to remove senior officers that he does not believe are exercising their authority in the best interests of the Army and the nation.
You're raising a real concern, but you're stretching it into something it's not.
The Hamilton case is a good example of failure inside the system. No argument there.
That's exactly why civilian oversight exists, and in that case it worked. Christine Wormuth stepped in and removed him when the IG substantiated misconduct. That's the check functioning, not evidence the whole system is captured.
But what you're describing with Wardynski sounds a lot more like an internal fight over access and roles than proof that the entire GO process has been hijacked. The Chief of Staff has always had enormous influence over GO assignments.
That's not new, and it's not unlawful. At the same time, boards, JAG review, Secretary endorsement, SecDef, and Senate confirmation are all still in the chain. There are multiple gates.
The bigger point you're missing is this: correcting internal failures through oversight is not the same as endorsing a shift toward overtly political promotions. Those are two very different paths.
One says 'tighten oversight, enforce standards, hold people accountable.' The other says 'promote based on alignment with an administration's preferences.' The first preserves a professional force. The second turns it into something else entirely.
You were in. You know the oath. We serve the Constitution, not a faction. Civilian control means lawful direction and accountability, not partisan sorting of the officer corps.
Fix the process where it fails. Don't break the principle that keeps the whole thing legitimate.
Did you listen to the entire interview or just the five minutes where I started that clip. There is clearly a problem with the way the Army uniformed leadership hides and obfuscates the promotion and assignment rationale from civilian leadership at the secretariat level.
Did you listen to the entire interview or just the five minutes where I started that clip. There is clearly a problem with the way the Army uniformed leadership hides and obfuscates the promotion and assignment rationale from civilian leadership at the secretariat level.
You're putting a lot of weight on one person's account, and that's where this starts to drift.
Wardynski absolutely had a front-row seat as ASA M&RA, no question. But what he's describing still sounds like a friction point between the Secretariat and the uniformed chain, not evidence that the entire promotion system is opaque or captured.
Are you telling me the DoN and HQMC never had their feuds?
The Chief of Staff having significant influence over GO assignments is not new, but it exists alongside multiple other gates.
So what you're saying is, you're ok with politicians picking and choosing who gets promoted…over that of uniformed military.
Because if you're good with that in Republican Admin…I assume your good with that during President AOCs term.
Yes I am OK with that. Our Constitution was written specifically giving elected officials this key authority.
Want to address the issue then blame our educational system and the Democratic Party leadership policy of open borders allowing criminals and terrorists into the country.
So…for clarity…you want general officers who are political…? As in actively Republican or actively Democrat?
Nope, they want people who follow lawful orders presented through a chain of command.
This all just looks sus, and a pattern with this admin, thus my comment.
HTH
And Hegseth is #2 on that chain of command. He decides the vision and direction of the forces. If someone down the chain doesn't want to do that then there are consequences.
That's how it works. That's how it has to work with the civilian led military.
So what you're saying is, you're ok with politicians picking and choosing who gets promoted…over that of uniformed military.
Because if you're good with that in Republican Admin…I assume your good with that during President AOCs term.
Yes I am OK with that. Our Constitution was written specifically giving elected officials this key authority.
Want to address the issue then blame our educational system and the Democratic Party leadership policy of open borders allowing criminals and terrorists into the country.
So…for clarity…you want general officers who are political…? As in actively Republican or actively Democrat?
The Democrats do...
And they make sure it happens...
That's a serious claim, but you're offering zero evidence for it.
Show me the mechanism. Not vibes, not anecdotes. Show me how a promotion board, reviewing hundreds of records with decades of OERs, command time, and stratifications, is somehow tagging officers as 'Democrat' and selecting them on that basis. That's just not how the system works.
By the time someone is in the GO pool, their record has been built and evaluated across multiple administrations, multiple raters, and multiple commands. You don't get a partisan officer corps out of a process like that unless you think the entire institution has been coordinating that for 20+ years. That's not serious.
What you're actually reacting to is policy direction at the top, which changes with elections. That's civilian control. The officers execute it. That does not mean they were promoted because of party affiliation.
If you're going to claim the system is promoting 'Democrat officers,' you need more than frustration and a couple names you don't like. You need proof. Otherwise it's just noise.
