Quote:

---

Are you telling me the DoN and HQMC never had their feuds?

---

You didn't even read my post. I described a case where the SecNav forced the Commandant to redo the BGen board and delayed senior officer slating and transfers for the entire Corps for nine months because the Commandant didn't ensure that the Generals he appointed to service on the selection board didn't have a conflict of interest.

You're actually making my argument for me.

That case shows the system caught a conflict of interest and forced a redo, even at massive cost. That's exactly what oversight is supposed to do. It's messy, but it worked.

What it does not show is a system promoting people based on party or turning the GO corps into a political arm. It shows a professional system with checks that can intervene when something goes wrong.

There's a big difference between 'the system has failures that get corrected' and 'the system is fundamentally partisan.' You're using the former to argue the latter, and they're not the same thing.

Teslag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

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.

---

We didn't get a woke as **** military because it's "apolitical". GTFO

---

If it were actually a partisan force, it wouldn't survive a change in administration without breaking.

The same officer corps executed policy under Donald Trump and then under Joe Biden without collapsing into factional loyalty. That only works if the institution is fundamentally apolitical.

What you're calling 'woke' is just policy direction from civilian leadership. That changes with elections. The officers don't.

Turn promotions into loyalty tests and you don't fix that. You guarantee the next administration purges and replaces them again. That's not strength. That's how you destroy a professional military.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

So…you don't want merit based promotion.

Understood.

---

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 doubt anyone here is saying that they didn't have the merit to reach the GO level...there are many O-6s that have a ton of merit throughout their career.

Some lean left and some lean right and some don't lean at all.

So, you have a large number of very qualified people for the job, but if you'd like the GO ranks to lean left, you could easily select mostly left-leaning O-6s to promote...

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

So…you don't want merit based promotion.

Understood.

---

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.

---

And what clears those command gates and stratification? Not rocking the boat. Avoiding risk. Not taking chances. Going along with your rater/senior rater and their politics/preferences/leadership styles. Avoiding investigations, either by not making unpopular decisions or by transferring out problems instead of enforcing standards.

Its not solely that the selection of GO's is political...its that the entire process from being selected for O-5 command to GO is so heavily influenced by politics that it negatively affects which leaders even make it to GO selection.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

richardag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ulysses, you know how GOs get selected…

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.

---

Proof is the DEI mandates, the climate change mandates, etc. ad nauseum.

It's disgusting that it happened and equally disgusting to claim it did not happen.

Quote:

---

That case shows the system caught a conflict of interest and forced a redo, even at massive cost. That's exactly what oversight is supposed to do. It's messy, but it worked.

---

I was still on active duty when that happened. The system didn't work because losing year and having General Officer billets around the globe frozen for months or having the Chief of Staff act in the place of the General is not success. It was a reprimand of "how did not not catch this and waste the time of so many senior leaders in and beyond the Marine Corps." Promotion boards are carefully sequenced in an annual cycle with increasingly little flexibility for delays as you go up the rank structure.

If the Captains, Majors, or LtCol lists are delayed, that's no big deal. But when you get to the O-6 to O-9 level, the Joint qualified billets cannot be as easily covered by increasingly smaller populations at each rank. Those Joint billets often have a Goldwater-Nichols statutory requirement for who can exercise that authority. Not having new BGens ready to move means that those selected for MajGen cannot move on to the two star billets and those nominated for LtGen have to leave and take the three star jobs even if there is no statutorily qualified two star to replace them.

The system didn't work. On a personal level, every Colonel that was competitive for BGen that year that didn't ultimately get selected by the second board will always wonder if their name was on the first list that got torn up. It was a significantly different list of selectees the second time. Passed over Colonels that fancied themselves as potential Generals can be a particularly bitter lot. After a few drinks the topic of "what should have been" comes up a lot.

It's not even confined to Generals. A lot of Colonels that should never have work eagles also get protected from consequences of misconduct that should have resulted in them being fired or even prosecuted (https://taskandpurpose.com/news/marine-corps-daniel-wilson-retire-lower-rank/).

Asad Khan's recent book titled Betrayal of Command and Fred Galvin's book titled A Few Bad Men are very sobering accounts of how badly senior leadership behave.

maverick2076 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

So…you don't want merit based promotion.

Understood.

---

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.

---

And what clears those command gates and stratification? Not rocking the boat. Avoiding risk. Not taking chances. Going along with your rater/senior rater and their politics/preferences/leadership styles. Avoiding investigations, either by not making unpopular decisions or by transferring out problems instead of enforcing standards.

Its not solely that the selection of GO's is political...its that the entire process from being selected for O-5 command to GO is so heavily influenced by politics that it negatively affects which leaders even make it to GO selection.

---

That's a better critique, but it still overstates what's actually happening.

Yes, the system rewards judgment and not being reckless. That's not the same as rewarding cowardice or blind conformity. 'Not rocking the boat' might keep you out of trouble early, but it does not get you top blocks, key commands, and repeated selection over decades. Senior raters are staking their own credibility on those strats…they want people who get stuff done.

Look at the actual officers coming out of the system.

George commanded the 4th Infantry Division after a career in the 75th Ranger Regiment and Joint Special Operations Command. That is not a 'play it safe' environment and those communities do not tolerate passengers.

Could the system bias toward certain leadership styles or career paths? Sure.

Every large institution does. But that is very different from saying it is politically captured or primarily driven by ideology.

And more importantly, that critique still does not support politicizing promotions. If anything, it argues for tighter standards and better evaluation, not injecting partisan alignment into the process.

One is a refinement problem. The other breaks the profession.

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

That case shows the system caught a conflict of interest and forced a redo, even at massive cost. That's exactly what oversight is supposed to do. It's messy, but it worked.

---

I was still on active duty when that happened. The system didn't work because losing year and having General Officer billets around the globe frozen for months or having the Chief of Staff act in the place of the General is not success. It was a reprimand of "how did not not catch this and waste the time of so many senior leaders in and beyond the Marine Corps." Promotion boards are carefully sequenced in an annual cycle with increasingly little flexibility for delays as you go up the rank structure.

If the Captains, Majors, or LtCol lists are delayed, that's no big deal. But when you get to the O-6 to O-9 level, the Joint qualified billets cannot be as easily covered by increasingly smaller populations at each rank. Those Joint billets often have a Goldwater-Nichols statutory requirement for who can exercise that authority. Not having new BGens ready to move means that those selected for MajGen cannot move on to the two star billets and those nominated for LtGen have to leave and take the three star jobs even if there is no statutorily qualified two star to replace them.

The system didn't work. On a personal level, every Colonel that was competitive for BGen that year that didn't ultimately get selected by the second board will always wonder if their name was on the first list that got torn up. It was a significantly different list of selectees the second time. Passed over Colonels that fancied themselves as potential Generals can be a particularly bitter lot. After a few drinks the topic of "what should have been" comes up a lot.

It's not even confined to Generals. A lot of Colonels that should never have work eagles also get protected from consequences of misconduct that should have resulted in them being fired or even prosecuted (https://taskandpurpose.com/news/marine-corps-daniel-wilson-retire-lower-rank/).

Asad Khan's recent book titled Betrayal of Command and Fred Galvin's book titled A Few Bad Men are very sobering accounts of how badly senior leadership behave.

---

You're describing disruption, not failure.

The board got blown up because a conflict of interest slipped through. That's a miss on the front end. But the fact that it was caught at the Secretariat level and forced to be redone, despite the cost, is exactly the system correcting itself.

Is it painful? Absolutely. Does it create second- and third-order effects across billets and careers? Yes. But the alternative is letting a compromised list stand, and that's far worse.

And we've been warning about this kind of thing forever. The whole point of Courtney Massengale is what happens when careerism and self-protection creep into senior leadership. That tension isn't new.

No one is arguing the system is perfect. There are bad leaders, protected careers, and uneven accountability. That's been true in every era since Tun Tavern.

But that's an argument for better enforcement and oversight.

bobbranco said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

richardag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ulysses, you know how GOs get selected…

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.

---

Proof is the DEI mandates, the climate change mandates, etc. ad nauseum.

It's disgusting that it happened and equally disgusting to claim it did not happen.

---

Those are policy mandates, not proof of partisan promotions.

A lawful administration sets priorities. The military implements them. That has been true under every president, whether the focus was counterinsurgency, climate, sexual assault, or DEI. You may dislike the policy, but executing policy is not the same thing as promoting officers because they are Democrats.

You still have not shown the mechanism…

Where is the board guidance that says 'pick Democrats'?

Where is the record review that tags officers by party?

Where is the evidence that decades of OERs, command screens, and stratifications were replaced by partisan registration?

What you are calling proof is really just evidence that civilian policy changed.

That is not the same thing, and pretending otherwise is exactly how people confuse civilian control with partisan capture.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Those are policy mandates, not proof of partisan promotions.

---

Policy and partisanship are one in the same.

Yay for the wonderful Obama colonels and generals.

Right?

bobbranco said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Those are policy mandates, not proof of partisan promotions.

---

Policy and partisanship are one in the same.

Yay for the wonderful Obama colonels and generals.

Right?

---

Bruh… I'm saying…the military is expected to execute its lawful orders faithfully regardless of who the civilians in charge are.

What I'm challenging people to identify is where in the promotion system did party allegiance get you selected?

I think this discussion could be helped by separating the term "politics" from "party politics". The former exists in all organizations including the military. When that pyramid of senior generals gets so steep, they all end up knowing each other, whether from serving with them or USMA etc. The process and system fails if it's not trusted. And that trust can be eroded by how it's implemented. Critical term there is "how". The goal or endstate of what Hegseth may want may be amendable, but there is a cost in how it may be effected or executed. That cost can be the culture of the organization and the trust in the process. The "how" is important and often overlooked I'm afraid.

Bad timing to do it in the middle of a war.
Fire him, whatever, but after or before a war.

oldag941 said:

---

I think this discussion could be helped by separating the term "politics" from "party politics". The former exists in all organizations including the military. When that pyramid of senior generals gets so steep, they all end up knowing each other, whether from serving with them or USMA etc. The process and system fails if it's not trusted. And that trust can be eroded by how it's implemented. Critical term there is "how". The goal or endstate of what Hegseth may want may be amendable, but there is a cost in how it may be effected or executed. That cost can be the culture of the organization and the trust in the process. The "how" is important and often overlooked I'm afraid.

---

I will agree with that part.

There is "politics" in EVERYTHING, but not necessarily the partisan type.

Ag with kids said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

I think this discussion could be helped by separating the term "politics" from "party politics". The former exists in all organizations including the military. When that pyramid of senior generals gets so steep, they all end up knowing each other, whether from serving with them or USMA etc. The process and system fails if it's not trusted. And that trust can be eroded by how it's implemented. Critical term there is "how". The goal or endstate of what Hegseth may want may be amendable, but there is a cost in how it may be effected or executed. That cost can be the culture of the organization and the trust in the process. The "how" is important and often overlooked I'm afraid.

---

I will agree with that part.

There is "politics" in EVERYTHING, but not necessarily the partisan type.

---

This is true…you wanna talk about the really vicious politics in the military?

It's fighting over the budget between services…or between communities inside a service over budget.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

I think this discussion could be helped by separating the term "politics" from "party politics". The former exists in all organizations including the military. When that pyramid of senior generals gets so steep, they all end up knowing each other, whether from serving with them or USMA etc. The process and system fails if it's not trusted. And that trust can be eroded by how it's implemented. Critical term there is "how". The goal or endstate of what Hegseth may want may be amendable, but there is a cost in how it may be effected or executed. That cost can be the culture of the organization and the trust in the process. The "how" is important and often overlooked I'm afraid.

---

I will agree with that part.

There is "politics" in EVERYTHING, but not necessarily the partisan type.

---

This is true…you wanna talk about the really vicious politics in the military?

It's fighting over the budget between services…or between communities inside a service over budget.

---

Having worked in the defense industry for 30+ years, I understand that one quite well.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

richardag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ulysses, you know how GOs get selected…

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.

---

Proof is the DEI mandates, the climate change mandates, etc. ad nauseum.

It's disgusting that it happened and equally disgusting to claim it did not happen.

---

Those are policy mandates, not proof of partisan promotions.

A lawful administration sets priorities. The military implements them. That has been true under every president, whether the focus was counterinsurgency, climate, sexual assault, or DEI. You may dislike the policy, but executing policy is not the same thing as promoting officers because they are Democrats.

You still have not shown the mechanism…

Where is the board guidance that says 'pick Democrats'?

Where is the record review that tags officers by party?

Where is the evidence that decades of OERs, command screens, and stratifications were replaced by partisan registration?

What you are calling proof is really just evidence that civilian policy changed.

That is not the same thing, and pretending otherwise is exactly how people confuse civilian control with partisan capture.

---

No one is saying they were promoted for being democrats. But there have been promotions for many based on DEI and other BS. And those that embrace it rose faster.

That's political whether you like it or not.

infinity ag said:

---

Bad timing to do it in the middle of a war.
Fire him, whatever, but after or before a war.

---

Army chief of staff has very little input regarding the Iran war. That would be the CENTCOM combatant commander.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

richardag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ulysses, you know how GOs get selected…

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?

---

No. False argument is false.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

richardag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ulysses, you know how GOs get selected…

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 Iauthority.

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?

---

No, false argument is false. You missed I said,"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."

I want the military under direct control of ELECTED OFFICIALS, as our Founding Fathers intended.

General Douglas MacArthur was a prime example of military becoming political.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

richardag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

richardag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ulysses, you know how GOs get selected…

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.

• Hense the need to purge the military of DEI bull****, treasonous POS like General Milley

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.

• Like the General my father had removed from an active ORI by Military Police, that came in drunk countermanding commands, This same General who had failed 3 previous ORIs.

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 the Commander in Chief cannot rely on the command to carry out orders, yes then they should be removed. The Commander in Chief is elected not some General who apparently believes they are more important than someone the citizens elected. Unfortunately, President Obama and Biden occurred who DID NOT HAVE THE BEST INTERESTS IN HE COUNTRY IN MIND and were acolytes of Saul Alinsky.

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???

• Like all the DEI appointments and promotions that had enlistment at historical lows.

---

I am not conflating anything.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

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.

---

President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961)
quote from the article

• Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, "old soldier" speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex."

Some of the military, probably most, firmly believe in their oath and follow it completely, however there are many examples of military leaders lapsing into their personal political beliefs.

LMCane said:

---

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.

---

That and the need to restrain any megalomaniac General seizing control of the government based on their own personal beliefs.
Generals can be replaced by an elected President and his administration, Presidents can be impeached. Checks and balances.

Can someone tell me about Maj. Gen. William Green's role in "Spirtual Fitness Guide"?

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Those are policy mandates, not proof of partisan promotions.

---

Policy and partisanship are one in the same.

Yay for the wonderful Obama colonels and generals.

Right?

---

Bruh… I'm saying…the military is expected to execute its lawful orders faithfully regardless of who the civilians in charge are.

What I'm challenging people to identify is where in the promotion system did party allegiance get you selected?

---

Transgender celebrations are a good thing. LOL.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

richardag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ulysses, you know how GOs get selected…

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.

---

Proof is the DEI mandates, the climate change mandates, etc. ad nauseum.

It's disgusting that it happened and equally disgusting to claim it did not happen.

---

Those are policy mandates, not proof of partisan promotions.

---

While people line up to blindly proclaim that his firing was unjust… let me tell you something General George did that lacked integrity…

An anecdote of the woke nonsense that Gen. George was up to…

In 2024, Gen. George approved a command slate override for a Black female… https://t.co/kI0Q4mWumJ

— Wade Miller (@WadeMiller) April 5, 2026

See the links. George has a history re: promotions that is problematic at best, imho.

There are bad officers and always have been, it's just a simple fact that the military is run by human beings, and sometimes their removal is justified based on actions they take/do not take, which do not amount to 'partisan' but fall somewhere on Clauswitz 'clever-diligent-stupid-lazy' spectrum that require their removal(s).

Whoa. I can't believe I've never heard of that clever-diligent-stupid-lazy spectrum thing before now! Seems like a hell of a lot more useful than any Meyers-Briggs or whatever when it comes to assessment of people.

He was a smart dude. Fun fact, it was his wife who collected his writings to be published as 'on war' after his death.

nortex97 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

richardag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ulysses, you know how GOs get selected…

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.

---

Proof is the DEI mandates, the climate change mandates, etc. ad nauseum.

It's disgusting that it happened and equally disgusting to claim it did not happen.

---

Those are policy mandates, not proof of partisan promotions.

---

While people line up to blindly proclaim that his firing was unjust… let me tell you something General George did that lacked integrity…

An anecdote of the woke nonsense that Gen. George was up to…

In 2024, Gen. George approved a command slate override for a Black female… https://t.co/kI0Q4mWumJ

— Wade Miller (@WadeMiller) April 5, 2026

See the links. George has a history re: promotions that is problematic at best, imho.

There are bad officers and always have been, it's just a simple fact that the military is run by human beings, and sometimes their removal is justified based on actions they take/do not take, which do not amount to 'partisan' but fall somewhere on Clauswitz 'clever-diligent-stupid-lazy' spectrum that require their removal(s).

---

I'm not going to defend George's behavior over Hamilton.

Remember, this was during the Biden admin, and a Biden service secretary stepped in and corrected it.

Are there individual issues? Absolutely!

But I think the system largely promotes people based on merit and the folks you're getting at the top are the best.

nortex97 said:

---

He was a smart dude. Fun fact, it was his wife who collected his writings to be published as 'on war' after his death.

---

There are some questions about who did a lot of the editing and how much Mary Louisa was involved…IOW she may have had a heavier hand than we know.

After the results of officer promotion selection boards had been vetted, approved, and publicly released, Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs used to publish highly detailed demographic statistics on who was selected and who was not selected. I know this from having done research using that data for a study a dozen years ago about the adverse impact of graduate education programs on promotion rates to LtCol in the Marine Corps. I assume that for other branches of service this data was also published.

Among the statistics published on the public facing website were the selection rate by sex, race, commissioning source (service academy, ROTC, prior enlisted OCS, etc.), and graduate degrees. You could look at these reports immediately and see where there was any significant deviation from the population average for any category.

Today in the era of big data analytics, those reports are no longer released on public facing websites or even on the CAC authenticated .mil networks. Not only that, when I searched archive.org for old versions of the M&RA Promotions web pages where those PDF documents containing demographic data on promotion selection statistics, those are all dead links.

I suspect that a FOIA request on officer promotion selection statistics by sex and race for the years after 2015 would be denied because it would show a significantly higher selection rate to O-7 and above for women and racial minorities. The services didn't simply forget to publish the data. They don't want the public to see it because it would be a gaint flashing billboard that reveals policies in effect that the military does not want to admit.

Ulysses90 said:

---

After the results of officer promotion selection boards had been vetted, approved, and publicly released, Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs used to publish highly detailed demographic statistics on who was selected and who was not selected. I know this from having done research using that data for a study a dozen years ago about the adverse impact of graduate education programs on promotion rates to LtCol in the Marine Corps. I assume that for other branches of service this data was also published.

Among the statistics published on the public facing website were the selection rate by sex, race, commissioning source (service academy, ROTC, prior enlisted OCS, etc.), and graduate degrees. You could look at these reports immediately and see where there was any significant deviation from the population average for any category.

Today in the era of big data analytics, those reports are no longer released on public facing websites or even on the CAC authenticated .mil networks. Not only that, when I searched archive.org for old versions of the M&RA Promotions web pages where those PDF documents containing demographic data on promotion selection statistics, those are all dead links.

I suspect that a FOIA request on officer promotion selection statistics by sex and race for the years after 2015 would be denied because it would show a significantly higher selection rate to O-7 and above for women and racial minorities. The services didn't simply forget to publish the data. They don't want the public to see it because it would be a gaint flashing billboard that reveals policies in effect that the military does not want to admit.

---

Two thoughts:


1. Half those years would be under Trump…so I doubt his Service MR&A would have been hiding those stats.

2. I do know of a 2018 study that examined USAF DG selection rates at certain service schools…and it largely found that minority selection for DG (single biggest indicator for GO potential) was below what should reflect based on the population…

HOWEVER…the bigger discriminator was if you were a pilot…and minorities have by far lower participation in rated communities.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

richardag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Ulysses, you know how GOs get selected…

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.

---

Proof is the DEI mandates, the climate change mandates, etc. ad nauseum.

It's disgusting that it happened and equally disgusting to claim it did not happen.

---

Those are policy mandates, not proof of partisan promotions.

---

While people line up to blindly proclaim that his firing was unjust… let me tell you something General George did that lacked integrity…

An anecdote of the woke nonsense that Gen. George was up to…

In 2024, Gen. George approved a command slate override for a Black female… https://t.co/kI0Q4mWumJ

— Wade Miller (@WadeMiller) April 5, 2026

See the links. George has a history re: promotions that is problematic at best, imho.

There are bad officers and always have been, it's just a simple fact that the military is run by human beings, and sometimes their removal is justified based on actions they take/do not take, which do not amount to 'partisan' but fall somewhere on Clauswitz 'clever-diligent-stupid-lazy' spectrum that require their removal(s).

---

I'm not going to defend George's behavior over Hamilton.

Remember, this was during the Biden admin, and a Biden service secretary stepped in and corrected it.

Are there individual issues? Absolutely!

But I think the system largely promotes people based on merit and the folks you're getting at the top are the best.

---

The best at what? My general view of the GWOT general class is (I have yet to find one that did not display personal bravery at lower level rank) they were mostly good technicians with no integrity. They failed to tell even the basic truth in regards to the actual circumstances on the ground in Afghanistan. They stood up and said the ANA was a legitimate fighting force and "trusted" institution. It only existed on paper. Anyone that touched that should be out of a job. I don't think the removal of general officers should be anywhere near complete.

So far, only ~2% of generals have been removed. It is not uncommon for failed institutions to require the removal of 50% of leadership to effect a turnaround.