The Pentagon Must Go on the Offensive to Defeat Politicized Officers

[mudwhistle]

Rules are man-made. They can and should be revised wherever they stop making sense.

I just don't understand why you have to be so rigid about it. Presidents are humans too, and as humans, they can fuck up majorly. And when they do, I see no point in demanding all his subordinates still respect him. Maybe they don't deserve any respect whatsoever, depending on their offense.


But the idea is the same though. They both serve the country and the people, they shouldn't have any political affiliations when carrying out their official duties.

I didn't issue the order. I only had to follow them.
When you're in the military you don't have the same rights everyone else has in America.
You swear an oath to give up some of your rights.
Sorry if that bugs you.

 

[Crepitus]

The Pentagon Must Go on the Offensive to Defeat Politicized Officers​

How are they gonna do that with tRump purging all the sane ones and replacing them with loyalists?

 

[MayorQuimby]

I didn't issue the order. I only had to follow them.
When you're in the military you don't have the same rights everyone else has in America.
You swear an oath to give up some of your rights.
Sorry if that bugs you.

It doesn't bug me at all, sounds you are the one getting bothered. All I did was ask questions and you got all defensive.

 

[mudwhistle]

Not from your posts here

That's rich taking into consideration you're still flying a Ukrainian flag.

That's like wearing a face-diaper outdoors.

 

[mudwhistle]

It doesn't bug me at all, sounds you are the one getting bothered. All I did was ask questions and you got all defensive.

I'm not bothered. You are.

I'm stating a fact, and you can't seem to wrap your brain around it.

 

[MayorQuimby]

I'm not bothered. You are.

Lmao, you're the one who was all, "sorry if it bugs you". Dude, all I did was ask you questions. No need to get bent out of shape.

I'm stating a fact, and you can't seem to wrap your brain around it.

I can't wrap my brain around something that doesn't make sense. Yes, you got me.

 

[Skylar]

The Pentagon Must Go on the Offensive to Defeat Politicized Officers​

The Pentagon Must Go on the Offensive to Defeat Politicized Officers

townhall.com

14 Apr 2025 ~~ By Kurt Schlichter

That Space Force colonel in command in Greenland – well, formerly in command in Greenland – who ran her fool mouth to undermine her commander-in-chief demonstrates an all-too-common problem with today’s senior military officers. We keep seeing these passive-aggressive, and not so passively aggressive, officers acting out and throwing childish tantrums of resistance to the President that the people of the United States elected. It’s inconceivable to those of us from the military who won the Cold War; we stayed the hell out of politics. Somehow, they must have missed that civilian control block of instruction; non-partisanship is a vital principle of our officer corps. To be political on duty is a violation of our oaths. It’s a violation of our ethos as officers. And it’s got to be brutally crushed – even Barack Obama understood that when he properly canned General Stanley McChrystal for having a staff that thought it was okay to diss the President to reporters (incredibly, after this massive leadership failure, McChrystal has gone on to sell his leadership insights to eager civilian suckers, but that’s another story).
We simply cannot have a functioning military that tolerates individuals putting their own personal prerogatives ahead of the mission – and that’s exactly what this political posturing is. It brings to mind a story of my continuing dispute with my command sergeant major when I commanded a cavalry squadron. We rarely disagreed on anything; my CSM was that guy whose picture is scowling back at you, judging you, when you look up the definition of a noncommissioned officer. But every chow time in the field, we had a confrontation. One of us would note that the last of the soldiers had eaten, and then the argument would begin.
“Sir, time for you to grab chow.”
“After you, Sergeant Major.”
“After you, Colonel.”
It was the same dispute, every meal. Both of us wanted to eat last. That’s because leaders eat last. That’s because leaders put themselves after their troops. It was a point of pride.
~Snip~
Your politics don’t matter when you are a military leader. At all. Politics have no place in the military. None. I was becoming more and more prominent politically and in the media as a civilian while I was becoming a senior field grade officer as a reservist, but I was actively apolitical around the troops.
~Snip~
But apparently, some officers these days think there is a Trump Exception to their duty as officers to be apolitical, just as there appears to be a Trump Exception to every other rule, regulation, norm, and standard in our society and government. They are wrong, and their utterly bass ackwards conception of their duties as leaders is poisonous to the organization. If you aren’t loyal to the commander-in-chief, who are you loyal to?
~Snip~
What’s stunning is the sheer cheesiness of their tiresome acts of resistance. The commander of Fort Igloo decided to throw away her career by mass emailing a cloying letter that emphasized how she didn’t support the political leadership’s initiatives re: Greenland. What was she thinking? Another officer at NATO headquarters refused to post pictures of the new commander-in-chief and vice-president, as is a rule on military installations.
~Snip~
There is, of course, a quick and effective means of setting the standard – or, in this case, resetting it. And Pete Hegseth is doing it. When you find someone who is failing to meet his or her obligations as a senior officer, you fire him or her. You do it immediately, like the SecDef did here. You don’t dither. You don’t equivocate. You don’t wait a couple of months until the brigadier general you detailed to perform an Army Regulation 15–6 investigation completes it. You fire the offender on the spot. And you consider firing his or her boss for allowing that kind of command climate to fester.
You also ensure that the relieved officer is retired at the rank where he or she last served satisfactorily, as opposed to the rank he or she wore when fired. Here’s a pro-tip: You didn’t serve satisfactorily if you were relieved for cause. And, where appropriate, you use the Uniform Code of Military Justice to prosecute those senior officers who violate the law and publicly embarrass the officer corps through their gross lack of professionalism. If you can bust a private for mislaying his M4, you can charge a colonel or general who breaches the most basic rules that govern our military organizations.
~Snip~
It’s not outside the realm of possibility that I might be called back on active duty as a retiree for a short time to help out with rebuilding my beloved military – clearly, the situation is desperate. But if I do, during the time I’m wearing the uniform, you won’t hear a damn thing from me here or on X about what I think about politics.
We need a military that can win wars again. That will not happen until we first defeat the senior leaders who put their politics ahead of their duty.


Commentary:
Under president Obama there was a purge of the Officer and Non-commissioned office corps within all branches of the military.
Along with the purge a promotion of politically ideological personnel were advanced.
People like Vanderman, Milley, Austin, and the commander of Fort Igloo were propelled into higher ranks that would not have been previously considered for promotion.
Pete Hegseth is correct and is doing the best thing. He's weeding out those officers that have become politically active and removed them from authority and influencing the military ethos wrongly.
Kudos to what is occurring it makes a stronger and effective military when they adhere to it's strengths rather than effeminizing our forces and using political officers like Russian a China to politically control ou military.

With politicized officers being anyone who is loyal to the constitution and not Trump personally?

 

[mudwhistle]

Lmao, you're the one who was all, "sorry if it bugs you". Dude, all I did was ask you questions. No need to get bent out of shape.



I can't wrap my brain around something that doesn't make sense. Yes, you got me.

It doesn't make sense.....to you.

If you have a military unit that feels they can disobey orders when the shit gets rough then you won't have an effective unit.

Many of the orders I had to follow didn't make any sense....but they'll lock you up in the stockade if you decide you don't need to follow orders.

When Clinton was POTUS, we didn't like him. But they told us we weren't allowed to talk about him. So we didn't.

 

[MayorQuimby]

It doesn't make sense.....to you.

If you have a military unit that feels they can disobey orders when the shit gets rough then you won't have an effective unit.

But we are not talking about disobeying orders. We are talking about disrespecting the president. Two related, but still different things.

Many of the orders I had to follow didn't make any sense....but they'll lock you up in the stockade if you decide you don't need to follow orders.

Ok, I don't know how things work in your country, but I remember taking a class here, where they taught us that if a solider found an order given by his superior to be highly immoral (for example, if he was ordered to genocide a group of people), he could and should disobey, and more importantly, he would not be punished for it. I am kind of surprised that this isn't a thing in your country.

When Clinton was POTUS, we didn't like him. But they told us we weren't allowed to talk about him. So we didn't.

Well, I understand why they would not want people to talk about a president, because it would make the unit less effective. But then, maybe you as a human being with a conscience, should ask yourself why you would want to continue to work for an organization that would forbid you from talking about your superior like that. The only reason I can think of is that the superior must have done some really scummy things.

 

[Lesh]

That's rich taking into consideration you're still flying a Ukrainian flag.

That's like wearing a face-diaper outdoors.

No. Actually it’s not

 

[mudwhistle]

But we are not talking about disobeying orders. We are talking about disrespecting the president. Two related, but still different things.



Ok, I don't know how things work in your country, but I remember taking a class here, where they taught us that if a solider found an order given by his superior to be highly immoral (for example, if he was ordered to genocide a group of people), he could and should disobey, and more importantly, he would not be punished for it. I am kind of surprised that this isn't a thing in your country.



Well, I understand why they would not want people to talk about a president, because it would make the unit less effective. But then, maybe you as a human being with a conscience, should ask yourself why you would want to continue to work for an organization that would forbid you from talking about your superior like that. The only reason I can think of is that the superior must have done some really scummy things.

We are talking about orders.

We were under a constant order never to disrespect the president no matter who he was.



You're talking apples and oranges.

There is nothing immoral about keeping your fucking mouth shut and doing what you were told, as long as the person in charge isn't ordering you to shoot up a village.
Nobody is ordering anyone to shoot up a village here.

And I'm not going to speculate about what kind of cocksucker occupies the White House. Most of them were assholes anyway, but as a soldier that's none of our business.
Anyone who wants to join a cult or start painting their hair green can get the fuck out of the service and knock themselves out following anyone they want once they're discharged.

 

[Doc7505]

With politicized officers being anyone who is loyal to the constitution and not Trump personally?

~~~~~~
Indeed, the military is subject to the CIC, not Trump as an individual. However Trump is in fact the President of the United States and Commander in Chief until Jan 20th, 2029.
Refusing to follow orders of the freely and Duly elected President of the United States of America deserves immediate action, courts marshalled and dismissed of all duties.
Regretfully, the public disgrace by Cashier us no longer used.

Cashiering - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

xxxxxxxxxx​

UCMJ Article 88: Contempt Toward Officials

The MCM states any service member may be prosecuted under Article 88 (Contempt Toward Officials) if they use “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Security, or the Governor or...

www.mymilitarylawyers.com

xxxxxxxxxx​

Here Are the Rules on Political Activity and Protests for Active-Duty Troops

Can military members participate in protests and rallies or be politically active? Here are the rules.

www.military.com

xxxxxxxxxx​

https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/DoD-Personnel/Ethics-Topics-for-DoD-Personnel/Political-Activities/

 

[MayorQuimby]

We are talking about orders.

We were under a constant order never to disrespect the president no matter who he was.

Well, I would object to this if I were a member of your military. And if they would punish me for it, I would quit.

My conscience is higher than any authority on earth. If my conscience tells me the president is a POS, then I am going to disrespect him. If I get kicked out of the army for it, so be it.

What's more important to you sir, your conscience, or your military pay-check?

You're talking apples and oranges.

There is nothing immoral about keeping your fucking mouth shut and doing what you were told, as long as the person in charge isn't ordering you to shoot up a village.
Nobody is ordering anyone to shoot up a village here.

If you can disobey an order (in our case, shooting up a village), then in theory there are also other kinds of orders you can disobey. And if there are orders that you can disobey as a soldier, then disrespecting the president doesn't seem like such a big deal to me anymore.

And I'm going to speculate about what kind of cocksucker occupies the White House. Most of them were assholes anyway, but as a soldier that's none of our business.

I think it should be your business. You should not follow the orders of a president who has shown through actions that he's a POS.

Anyone who wants to join a cult or start painting their hair green can get the fuck out of the service and knock themselves out following anyone they want once they're discharged.

Again, if that's how you guys want to run your military, hey, none of my business. I just think it's really dumb and it goes against people's freedom of conscience. Soldiers should, in limited circumstances, be able to talk amongst themselves about the morality of the orders they received, as well as the moral character of the one who's giving them those orders.

 

[Skylar]

~~~~~~
Indeed, the military is subject to the CIC, not Trump as an individual. However Trump is in fact the President of the United States and Commander in Chief until Jan 20th, 2029

UCMJ Article 88: Contempt Toward Officials

The MCM states any service member may be prosecuted under Article 88 (Contempt Toward Officials) if they use “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Security, or the Governor or...

www.mymilitarylawyers.com

xxxxxxxxxx​

Here Are the Rules on Political Activity and Protests for Active-Duty Troops

Can military members participate in protests and rallies or be politically active? Here are the rules.

www.military.com

xxxxxxxxxx​

https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/DoD-Personnel/Ethics-Topics-for-DoD-Personnel/Political-Activities/

And what contemptuous words did Col. Susan Meyers utter in violation of USMJ Article 88.

Specifically.

 

[Doc7505]

How are they gonna do that with tRump purging all the sane ones and replacing them with loyalists?

~~~~~~
Funny, under the Joey Xi Baidung administration, for four years military enlistments were all down because of trans, DEI and CRT implementations.
Under the Trump administration suddenly enlistments are up. These are Americans not loyalists as you claim...

 

[Doc7505]

~~~~~~
Funny, under the Joey Xi Baidung administration, for four years military enlistments were all down because of trans, DEI and CRT implementations.
Under the Trump administration suddenly enlistments are up. These are Americans not loyalists as you claim...

Army to meet 2025 recruiting goals in dramatic turnaround, denies 'wokeness' is factor

The U.S. Army expects to meet its enlistment goals for 2025 in a dramatic turnaround for a service that has struggled for several years to bring in enough young people and has undergone a major overhaul of its recruiting programs.

www.pbs.org

xxxxxxxxxx​

Army recruitment hits major milestone, but it may not be enough

While the Army has faced an uphill battle in recruiting, it hit its recruitment target of 55,000 for the 2024 fiscal year.

www.newsweek.com

xxxxxxxxxx​

Army Recruitment in 2025 Sees a Surge as Branch Hits Halfway Goal for the Year | MyBaseGuide

Army recruitment in 2025 is already almost halfway to its goal after several improvements, but there's still a long way to go.

mybaseguide.com

 

[Skylar]

Army to meet 2025 recruiting goals in dramatic turnaround, denies 'wokeness' is factor

The U.S. Army expects to meet its enlistment goals for 2025 in a dramatic turnaround for a service that has struggled for several years to bring in enough young people and has undergone a major overhaul of its recruiting programs.

www.pbs.org

xxxxxxxxxx​

Army recruitment hits major milestone, but it may not be enough

While the Army has faced an uphill battle in recruiting, it hit its recruitment target of 55,000 for the 2024 fiscal year.

www.newsweek.com

xxxxxxxxxx​

Army Recruitment in 2025 Sees a Surge as Branch Hits Halfway Goal for the Year | MyBaseGuide

Army recruitment in 2025 is already almost halfway to its goal after several improvements, but there's still a long way to go.

mybaseguide.com

What? The article you're citing is for BEFORE Trump became president. With the strongest surges before he was even elected.

In fact, according to Army data, recruiting numbers have been increasing steadily over the past year, with the highest total in August 2024 — before the November election. Army officials closely track recruiting numbers.

 

[Doc7505]

And what contemptuous words did Col. Susan Meyers utter in violation of USMJ Article 88.

Specifically.

~~~~~~
"Actions that undermine the chain of command or subvert President Trump's agenda will not be tolerated." This statement appeared to confirm that Meyers' dismissal was linked directly to her email.

 

[Skylar]

~~~~~~
"Actions that undermine the chain of command or subvert President Trump's agenda will not be tolerated." This statement appeared to confirm that Meyers' dismissal was linked directly to her email.

You cited Article 88's contemptuous language regulations. And yet you can't show us any contemptuous language.

Well that was easy.

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't matter. Obama deserved to be disrespected. Clinton deserved to be disrespected. Biden deserved to be disrespected.
Doesn't matter if you agree with their politics or not.

STFU and do your job.

100%. How would dems have reacted if some officer wouldn't have posted the required pictures of Obama and Biden in their proper place on Base?