Let’s break down this stunningly tone-deaf article from Military.com by Steven Benyon: ‘It Could Be Very Hard to Do Our Job’: Top Military Officers Brace for Trump’s Potential Loyalty Review Boards
Senior officers in the U.S. military are preparing after reports of a potential new review process for top generals, a review they fear will vet personal loyalty to President-elect Donald Trump.
No, that they are not pushing a Cultural Marxist agenda hidden behind the anti-American Critical Race Theory/DEI ideology.
On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported on a draft executive order that is under consideration by the Trump transition team that would establish a so-called “warrior board,” to review top generals over whether they should continue service or not, and whether they lack certain leadership qualities.
The proposal mirrors calls from conservative think tanks, lawmakers and Trump to weed out what they call “woke” generals — broadly defined as officials who have promoted diversity in the ranks or supported taking vaccinations.
While the exact details of the proposed review board were unclear — including who would serve as the arbiters of a general’s leadership, though they would be appointed directly by the White House and would be veterans — the senior uniformed military community immediately responded with concern that their commitment to avoiding politics would not be able to hold.
“Avoiding politics”? They didn’t seem to be too concerned about avoiding the progressive leftist political agenda making the military a big social experiment.
“The military is run by civilians, but the politics are supposed to stay outside,” one currently serving Army lieutenant general told Military.com. “It could be very hard to do our job if we have to constantly be making sure we’re appeasing someone on a political or partisan level.”
REALLY? Like these officers haven’t been “appeasing” the White House pushing the political Marxist CRT/DEI agenda these past four years by virtue signaling their support and pushing it on the troops?
Senior officers and Pentagon officials interviewed expressed concerns about the ease with which generals who fall out of favor with Trump could find themselves under scrutiny.
Think if you’re a warfighter who doesn’t have time for woke crap, you’d be fine.
Most senior leaders have, at some point in their careers, publicly praised diversity as a virtue in meetings or at events — particularly as women and those from minority groups have gained more prominent roles within the ranks in recent years and as the country that provides the military’s recruiting pool has become more racially diverse. Many have likely signed memorandums or sent out emails to their formations emphasizing the importance of vaccines.
NOW they are worried/scared. They signed the memos, pushed the Marxist agenda, held Maoist Struggle Sessions shaming whites as extremists and racists, pushed the experimental C19 vax, making life hell for those who didn’t want to take it. All the while thinking they were doing the “in” thing dictated by Pentagon policymakers and the White House. The result was driving people out of the military with this woke agenda and forced vax and/or people didn’t want to come in because of these. NOW they are worried about being held accountable for their actions. Maybe now is a good time to take off the pronouns on your email signature.
The creation of a separate review process reporting directly to Trump that is outside of the existing job performance system could impose a chilling loyalty test — not to the Constitution or military code, but to a president known for prioritizing personal loyalty, currently serving generals and defense officials interviewed say.
What about their “chilling loyalty test” of those who wouldn’t take the vax or go along with the Marxist CRT/DEI agenda? Pushing out whites, Christians, but most of all–males.
One two-star Army general noted that the administration’s stance could instill fear around hiring minority or LGBTQ staff, with promotions of soldiers from certain backgrounds potentially facing heightened scrutiny.
“FROM CERTAIN BACKGROUNDS” – what about the discrimination against those of these backgrounds: males, whites and Christians and anyone who didn’t want to take an experimental, untested vax? You know, THOSE certain people.
This atmosphere of suspicion, the official warned, risks stifling diversity within the ranks and creating a hierarchy where personal backgrounds become a factor in career advancement — a stark departure from the military’s commitment to merit-based progression.
“Personal backgrounds become a factor in career advancement” – whatever do they mean by “personal backgrounds”? What about before when the “backgrounds” of white males who were deliberately overlooked from career advancement in favor of am often lesser competent minority or female? We’ve heard these stories over and over again. The males gave up advancing in their careers and left the military.
“The military’s commitment to merit-based progression” — REALLY? This website is full of examples that merit is NOT what the military has been doing, but instead favoring race or sex over merit. Good grief.
“I think moving forward, if someone is moved into a position and they don’t have a certain … let’s say … look, there could be hesitation,” the major general said on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation. “Or people are going to ask, ‘Hey, are we sure,’ because it could bring unwanted attention from the White House.”
“They don’t have a certain ‘look'” — How about the memos on USAF pilot quotas deliberately decreasing those who have a ‘certain look’: white males?
The Trump transition team’s draft on restructuring the military cited Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” as a key precedent. Established in 1940, Marshall’s board was composed of retired officers who reviewed the performance of active-duty officers. The thought was that too many senior officers were sticking around, blocking younger and more promising officers from promotion.
The hyper-fixated look at perceived diversity efforts in the force had created concern even ahead of the news about the review boards, with some defense officials and senior officers concerned over whether Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown will be fired. Brown has spoken publicly about the challenges of climbing the ranks as a Black man. One defense official said whether he’s fired will be a “canary in the coal mine” and would immediately set “a really bad tone” for the Trump administration’s relationship with the Pentagon.
What comes around, goes around. Shouldn’t have discriminated by race and be “color conscious”. Let’s go back to MLK, Jr’s focus on character and color-blindness.
During the Biden administration, Republicans in Congress have used military policies and actions of officers they label as “woke” as leverage to block or delay promotions. Col. Ben Jonsson, an Air Force officer nominated to one-star general, saw his promotion blocked by Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., using procedural tactics due to Jonsson writing an op-ed about racial blind spots in the military.
The guy that was a tyrant to his base?: ‘He Sees All White People as Racist’: Military Assessment Criticizes Air Force Colonel’s Leadership — “He wants anyone white to feel ashamed.” “Wing hiring practices are not based on the most qualified person, but focus solely on the perception of diversity.” “The Wg/CC [wing commander] pushes diversity at all cost to the level that performance and merit are not the primary markers for advancement or selection for opportunities.” “The color of someone’s skin is more important than the qualifications/diversity of thought of the individual. He wants anyone white to feel ashamed.” Etc.” The American people have spoken.
The Pentagon has historically insisted that service members remain staunchly apolitical, with specific regulations surrounding wearing the uniform as part of political activity, even as politically appointed civilian leadership often looks at national security through a political lens.
What we saw these past four years in the military and service academies was NOT “apolitical.”
“I never worried about what political party someone was in; it never occurred to me,” Paul Eaton, a retired infantry major general and head of the liberal veterans group VoteVets, told Military.com. “It could be very divisive to the [military]; it’ll create mistrust.”
Liberal? Try Leftist Progressive–VoteVets: “The first and largest group of progressive Veterans in America”, ” Electing Veterans who are fighting for a secure, prosperous, and progressive future”, “Maj Gen (RET) Paul Eaton Calls on Generals to Expose Trump’s Fascist Core – Our Nation is on the Line!”
It’s the progressive CRT/DEI agenda that has been so divisive to the military. The forced C19 vax caused a great deal of broken trust.
These people are living in another dimension of reality.
Leave a Comment