Trump's Warrior Board

[wing2000]

"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.

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."

'It Could Be Very Hard to Do Our Job': Top Military Officers Brace for Trump's Potential Loyalty Review Boards

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.

www.military.com

Members of the military swear an oath to the Constitution......(as does the President)

 

[Vambram]

If officers in the military at the top levels of the armed forces do NOT fully support the constitutional lawful orders of the Commander in Chief, why should they remain at the top levels of command in the military?

 

[rambot]

If officers in the military at the top levels of the armed forces do NOT fully support the constitutional lawful orders of the Commander in Chief, why should they remain at the top levels of command in the military?

You remember how Trump insists on 100% loyalty from those beneath him? Well generals in an army (as mentioned) swear oaths to uphold the constitution.

How does Trump insistence on 100% loyalty affect their ability to uphold the Constitution?

Well clearly, those people are concerned that maybe Trump is not going to give constitutional lawful orders.

Also, don't know if you've noticed but Trump has the diplomacy of a drunk gorilla and has a propensity to admire despots. Perhaps generals don't trust his judgement.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If officers in the military at the top levels of the armed forces do NOT fully support the constitutional lawful orders of the Commander in Chief, why should they remain at the top levels of command in the military?

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with obeying lawful orders.

It appears to be about political loyalty, or politics at least.

 

[rambot]

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with obeying lawful orders.

It appears to be about political loyalty, or politics at least.

Honestly, I bet it doesn't actually have anything to do with politics.

I'm guessing there are some people who just don't tolerate his stupidity and are willing to question him and call him out.

I don't think trump likes that at all.

 

[Vambram]

Are y'all forgetting just how very effective Trump's foreign policy was in his first term? Do y'all understand that Trump has a much higher amount of support from the rank and file Servicemembers of the US military than did Biden or Harris? I know for a fact that the vast majority of Servicemembers are sick and tired of the woke agenda that was shoved down our throats by "top officers" who were obeying the progressive left wing ideology of Joe Biden and the leadership of the Democratic Party.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Are y'all forgetting just how very effective Trump's foreign policy was in his first term?

Supposing I had forgotten that, it has nothing to do with ensuring personal loyalty among the military.

I know for a fact that the vast majority of Servicemembers are sick and tired of the woke agenda that was shoved down our throats by "top officers" who were obeying the progressive left wing ideology of Joe Biden and the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Supposing that's true, Trump can order the generals to not talk about whatever he declares 'woke', and the generals will obey.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Supposing I had forgotten that, it has nothing to do with ensuring personal loyalty among the military.

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years

Defense: What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving... Read More

www.investors.com

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years

Defense: What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.

We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.

Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture

 

[Vambram]

Supposing I had forgotten that, it has nothing to do with ensuring personal loyalty among the military.

Generals ought to be loyal to a competent Commander in Chief instead of getting in his way and getting in the way of the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, Secretary of the Navy, etc. The officers must respect the competent, and constitutional lawful orders of their own civilian leadership. In the military, loyalty is one of our primary values for military officers & NCOs.

 

[Vambram]

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years

Defense: What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving... Read More

www.investors.com

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years

Defense: What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.

We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.

Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture

Ain't it amazing how much we Americans appear to have forgotten from the relatively recent past, my sister? Thank you for showing that Obama and other Presidents have already paved the way on this topic. Donald Trump is also constitutionally allowed to do so.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years

Defense: What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving... Read More

www.investors.com

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders

Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."

That's bad/ineffective leadership. Not political positions.

 

[friend of]

Why wouldn't the commander in chief desire loyalty from the country he leads? Why is that a bad thing?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Generals ought to be loyal to a competent Commander in Chief instead of getting in his way

If they are refusing or slowwalking orders, they can be removed for cause.

The standards of this pre-review board are not clear.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why wouldn't the commander in chief desire loyalty from the country he leads?

What he gets is a snappy salute and a "Yes, Mr. President."

 

[Hazelelponi]

Ain't it amazing how much we Americans appear to have forgotten from the relatively recent past, my sister? Thank you for showing that Obama and other Presidents have already paved the way on this topic. Donald Trump is also constitutionally allowed to do so.

Obama I believe is actually why we are having such a difficult time with top brass now..

I also believe he was the first person in at least modern US history to utterly purge the military like that.

I believe, personal belief...

 

[Hazelelponi]

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders

Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."

That's bad/ineffective leadership. Not political positions.

But somehow, when Trump states that he wants to put a board made up of military personnel to look at the top brass and their fitness to serve it's just an automatic - he's firing people for political reasons before a board is even put together?

Don't you think perhaps before jumping on the "Trump's wrong" bandwagon he should do more than announce he's putting a board together?

You do know in the military of 25 years ago Milley would have been court marshalled for secretly calling Chinese military officials...

There's clear problems that I can see any incoming president being concerned with.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But somehow, when Trump states that he wants to put a board made up of military personnel to look at the top brass and their fitness to serve it's just an automatic - he's firing people for political reasons before a board is even put together?

He said he was gonna.

Trump was asked by Fox News in June whether he would fire generals described as "woke," a term for those focused on racial and social justice but which is used by conservatives to disparage progressive policies.

"I would fire them. You can't have (a) woke military," Trump said.

--

Obviously, there's already a process for removing people from command positions who disobey orders or leave the blast doors open on nuclear facilities. What Trump's creating is a hand-picked star chamber. We have every reason not to trust him.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

He said he was gonna.

Trump was asked by Fox News in June whether he would fire generals described as "woke," a term for those focused on racial and social justice but which is used by conservatives to disparage progressive policies.

"I would fire them. You can't have (a) woke military," Trump said.

I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with a "woke" military. I'm confused how it would even be a problem. What is wrong with diversity in the military?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with a "woke" military. I'm confused how it would even be a problem. What is wrong with diversity in the military?

Woke isn't diversity. We have a diverse military because we have a diverse nation. People of all ethnicities are American and sign up to serve militarily.

Woke is DEI initiatives, promotion of military personnel based not on merit, but on skin color or gender and more.

This type of thing is antithetical to the military - if you want a military that's in the top fitness for any war.

@essentialsaltes - and any of the brass who is putting into practice initiatives that ultimately weaken our military and by extension our nation is not fit to lead the military personnel under him.

 

[friend of]

Woke isn't diversity. We have a diverse military because we have a diverse nation. People of all ethnicities are American and sign up to serve militarily.

Woke is DEI initiatives, promotion of military personnel based not on merit, but on skin color or gender and more.

This type of thing is antithetical to the military - if you want a military that's in the top fitness for any war.

@essentialsaltes - and any of the brass who is putting into practice initiatives that ultimately weaken our military and by extension our nation is not fit to lead the military personnel under him.

It's true. If an Army (any army) is not a meritocracy it will suffer and be unfit to defend and exert power.